/int/ – No shittings during wörktime
„There is no place like home“

Currently at Radio Ernstiwan:


Hail Odin! by Christenklatscher666

M3U - XSPF


Niedliche Scheissmusik by Funpaku

Online player

M3U - XSPF


File (max. 4)
Return to
(optional)
  • Allowed file extensions (max. size 25 MB or specified)
    Images:  BMP, GIF, JPG, PNG, PSD   Videos:  FLV, MP4, WEBM  
    Archives:  7Z, RAR, ZIP   Audio:  FLAC, MP3, OGG, OPUS  
    Documents:  DJVU (50 MB), EPUB, MOBI, PDF (50 MB)  
  • Please read the Rules before posting.
  • Make sure you are familiar with the Guide to Anonymous Posting.

No. 56625
30 kB, 320 × 320
If you're so smart Ernst, what happens after we die?
>>
No. 56626 Kontra
Funeral.
>>
No. 56630
Seems like our consciousness is produced by our brain, so I guess death is perceived as DMT trip and then nothing.
>>
No. 56632
Body decomposes, while the sliver of God which sparked my existence is untethered and moves on to a new adventure.
>>
No. 56633
Death is a non concept just like nothingness.
You can't experience death, because at the time of death, you by definition no longer exist.

Death does not exist. The amount of time during which you can experience being, is all of time that has ever been.

It would be wrong to say that nothing happens after you die. There is not even nothing. There is no after or before, and has never been.
It is equivalent to asking what was before there was time. There was no "was".
>>
No. 56634
11 kB, 227 × 222
>>56633
>There is not even nothing. There is no after or before, and has never been. It is equivalent to asking what was before there was time. There was no "was".
I have a huge bet running on that effect, because when I die, time obviously becomes irrelevant for me. Suddenly a lot of things with very low possibility could happen, like a new universe spawns with a new (or the same) me in it. Sure it is unlikely, but if you have an infinite amount of time, anything is likely. And the possibility seems to be non-zero, snce it already happend at least once.

Of course I don't really believe that, because it is well known that after my death Crom will ask me if I know the secret of steel, and if I don't know it he will laugh at me and will throw me out of his holy halls!
>>
No. 56636
You live on further as signification.

rate the ernstness of my answer
>>
No. 56639
You stop exist, all the rest is bullshit
But I not thinking about it because it gives me panic attack.
>>
No. 56643
Varying states of separation from G-d. Either you rejected Him and His Truth, straying farther into your iniquity and hellish existence you made for yourself like a heroin junkie ignoring their friends, or you attain closeship to G-d until potentially merger I don't know.
>>
No. 56647
>>56634
>if you have an infinite amount of time, anything is likely
But you don't have an infinite amount of time after you die, because you will have stopped existing. Actual time will go on ofc, so a human could be born who looks exactly like you, thinks in similar ways etc. but it would be a new entity, not you.
>>
No. 56648
>>56647
Nothing really stops existing, it changes.
>>
No. 56649
I think the premise is already faulty, as Ernst is not smart, he just acts like he was.
That said, after we die, life goes on.
>>
No. 56650
>>56649
Nobody here acts or presents themselves as smart.
it's just a projection from ADHD kohltards who find it difficult to read more than 1 sentence replies, or bother to make a post equivalent in length to a middle school essay.
>>
No. 56652
The same that happens before you are born.
>>
No. 56653
>>56650
Oh please, that profound sense of smugness that accompanies virtually every single post here and that typical intellectual sentiment of "I am so worthless, but actually I am much smarter than everyone around me" that permeates this whole board are undeniable. I myself am guilty of that, too, by discussing it in the first place.
I mean, I enjoy the assburgering and I usually don't write single-sentence replies, but sometimes a sufficiently dumb question warrants a sufficiently provoking reply. And the fact that you seem to get triggered by this just confirms what I say.
Now call me a projecting kohltard. I just hope this won't catch on as a general insult like "redditor" on the american cancerchan, but then again, you're american, so...
>>
No. 56654
>>56653
None of that is unique to EC.
I think the only reason EC feels that way is because of the lack of cathartic shitposting, which acts as a sort of comic relief to the usual dreary atmosphere of typical IBs.

And complaining about dumb people around you does not mean you think of yourself as smart. The alleged smugness is an extrapolation on part of the reader.
>>
No. 56655
>>56650
>Nobody here acts or presents themselves as smart
I don't think we browse the same imageboard, everyone here does it. In my case it's justified because I actually am a big brain genius, but everyone else should tone it down XDDD
>>
No. 56656
>>56654
>None of that is unique to EC.
I never claimed that.

>And complaining about dumb people around you does not mean you think of yourself as smart.
Does it not? But if you are dumb yourself, how can you even recognize dumb people - unless you were smarter than them?

>>56655
:--DDDD
>>
No. 56657
>>56656
Smart-er, not smart in the absolute sense.
Cats are smarter than insects. Midwits like us are smarter than average bydlo. Duh.

God, do.I really have yo explain this? I'm so tired of being surrounded by idiots.
>>
No. 56658 Kontra
1,3 MB, 1055 × 1485
>>56654
>The alleged smugness is an extrapolation on part of the reader.

This tbh. I think none of us are really smart, including myself, we have certain interests but more importantly attitudes. Not allowing shitposting does not mean you are smart, it just means you don't want it. What smart that supposed to mean anyway? Is intelligence and cleverness the same? I've seen people failing high school being clever before.

People think Ernsts are indelegtchuals because their posting is rather dry, sometimes long-winded and oftentimes free of direct and indirect insults and malice compared to shitposting assembly line boards. I can know a lot about a topic and still feel dumb, why shouldn't that be possible? On kohl or other boards you get the same "normies/other people are X, Y , Z"
Although shitposting can be full of layering heavy with meaning, most of it seems more dopamine fueled activity to me, less content. Shitposting is a form foremost, it's about how it is done.
And I hate shitposting for the attitude, shitposting is the real smugness, where you can deem yourself above everything, shitposting is exactly that, to lift yourself above everyone else and only satisfy your shitty desires. There is literally no engagement.

Anyway, I thought we already agreed on Ernst ironically adopting the "outside" projection of being smart long ago.
>>
No. 56661
>>56658
Ah yes, that is what I forgot to mention - not answering questions, just asking more questions. That is a factor in the postulated background smugness, because by just asking counterquestions you not only divert the attention from yourself, but you also give the impression of appearing smarter because you manage to expose the perceived flaws in the other Ernst's logic, OR it's not even a counterquestion, but just an opinion - or a lack thereof - disguised as questions. Because asking questions is smart, right?
I think that is the main thing that bothers me here - that Ernst seems less interested in actually answering questions and finding solutions than extrapolating his opinions on the background of the theoretical base of the hypothetical matter at the potential hand, and, if one wants to be provocative, likes to see himself write (which, again, plays into the "smarter than thou" angle), because that is what all those long-ass posts are.

Let me ask you a question - and please, DON'T answer that question with a question:

Has any post on Ernstchan, provided it was not a post stating facts like "in 19xx this and that happened" or "journalist X is on Putin payroll", really given you any new insights? Like, what have you actually gained from the middle school essays here?

And again, NO counterquestions, just straight answers please.
>>
No. 56670
>>56650
It's not just the length of school essay. Quite often it's also informativeness and meaningfulness of school essay. You know, when teacher has 60 essays to check before tomorrow he won't put any effort to see which of them make any sense. He'll just check that you've written at least 2 pages, use rich vocabulary, complex syntax and mention relevant keywords. So you write something which satisfies these criterias and it works.
I guess people simply get used to this strategy during education and it becomes a habit.
>>
No. 56673
>>56661

you did not answer any of my questions as well but asked a counterquestion instead

>Has any post on Ernstchan, provided it was not a post stating facts like "in 19xx this and that happened" or "journalist X is on Putin payroll", really given you any new insights? Like, what have you actually gained from the middle school essays here?

If you mean anything groundbreaking, then the answer is no. But I'm not here for that. I'm not treating EC like a book or some in-group on topic X. EC is still chatter to me. You project something onto this board. EC is still about voluntary sociality with assburger twist, not an international academic symposion. I read newspaper articles that are longer than most texts here and I rarely remember them, I just do it for entertainment reasons.
Some heated discussions here serve as examples for me to get more clear about conflict lines that have been existing over decades and even centuries, and to know arguments: this in a way gives me insights, so I maybe have to differentiate my answer a bit in that sense. Nothing of this is groundbreaking though.
I'm just to lazy to answer everything and some of it would also require proper research to really work it through. EC is not the paper I have to write but still a chatterbox for me.
In the case of what smart means, this would definitely help to be more precise in debate. Just as you could have specified what you understand as insights. Because I'm not sure if chattering is supposed to give new insights all the time, repetition is not necessarily bad. What would be an insight to you that is not coming from a fact/argument stated?
And asking questions is just an indicator that something might be questionable, or points out that more answer than the initial one has to be asked in order to answer the initial question better. Any research project usually throws up more questions along the way for instance. I think asking questions is not a wrong thing to do. Doesn't mean have to answer them right away, it's part of chattering, meandering for fun and sometimes missing time, and again, laziness.

>that Ernst seems less interested in actually answering questions and finding solutions than extrapolating his opinions on the background of the theoretical base of the hypothetical matter at the potential hand

Could you give an example of what this would look like? What would be a solution on the debate question of liberalism is shit yes/no? What do you have in mind when talking about finding solutions to problems that EC has to engage in? To say it differently: debating the enlightenment is not a mathematical equation that you can resolve for x and then you have the only valid answer that is possible.

What expectations do you actually have, and why do you have those? The last one is a meta question, but this is not necessarily a bad thing, or is it? I'm a meta guy and why am I? Because I'm often in contact with "epistemological" questions. So I ask myself why do you write what you write, what is the background, and why do you wish for solutions sounding like EC has to find definite answers, answers to what problems? is there an imageboard that actually does as you wish?

Also, I really don't get why you think something like this is written with a smug face. I don't ask these questions because I want to feel smart, but because answering them could propel us further. You can answer them or not. but I wouldn't mind if you don't. If you can elaborate on the relation between ecological thought/concepts of ecologies and relational ontologies and their intellectual histories as well as their empirical consequences, I would be more than happy about an answer and gladly read your long ass post on it, because that is one bigger question occupying me
I have philosophical questions and question on histories of theory that are very much pressing for me, these question have gone a long way and some insightful answers might take another 3 years or so, probably more. That's how it is sometimes. And that is why I'm curious if you think these can easily be solved by some strangers on a lowly frequented imagebord. Or any imageboard at all. Maybe on reddit.
>>
No. 56678
>>56673
>you did not answer any of my questions as well but asked a counterquestion instead
See what I mean? Also, I don't know if it was intentional, but your post is exactly what I was describing.

Also, you're being inconsistent.
First you claim that EC is just chatter for you and that we're not some academics imageboard. Then you instantly turn around and talk about research bringing up new questions. What is now? Just idle chatter, which is not congruent at all with "serious discussion" - which is what I expect on the EC, or is it really trying to delve deeper into things?
If it is, you must be careful because, and that is something you just exhibited pretty well, you are at risk of getting lost in the details.
If every question brings up two more, where are we tomorrow? If you are someone who actually does research you should know that you a) can't possibly ask ALL questions and b) if you only keep asking question, you will never find an answer, so you MUST concentrate on the question at hand. When that one is answered, you can take care of the others, because trying to process the inevitable rattail will just destroy you. Sometimes Ernst seems to me like a hivemind of depressional "Grübeln". I don't know if there's a proper english analogue, but as you probably know it means thinking about stuff without every reaching any conclusion. And by just always asking more and more question without ever trying to answer the first one you are doing just that. And your arguing with regards to the precision of the question is just a cop-out to not having to provide an answer. If I am not satisfied with your answer, then I should probably rephrase, but the way you answer the question however you understood it is already also an answer in and by itself.
And to answer your question, new insights can of course come not only from facts, but also from e.g. a logically presented different point of view. I know it's hard to change one's point of view, especially with how ingrained the opinion in question already is, but it is possible. And I also asked "what did you gain", which is a really simple question, and from your reply I could infer that you could at least gain some entertainment, even if you refused to answer that question.

As for your final lines, sorry, you lost me there. The concept of
>So I ask myself why do you write what you write, what is the background,
is just something I can't comprehend because now you are indeed yourself being imprecise, but on a crucial level, because is this an actual philosophical question or is it about the life situation of the poster, which of course is a really dumb thing to think about because you can never get an actual answer to that if the poster doesn't answer. And imo questions that can't be answered shouldn't need to be asked.

Also, you people still seem to misunderstand and focus too much on the smugness comment. Which on the one hand tells me that I struck a nerve, but on the other hand I want to remind you that I was talking about a profound, or "background" smugness that doesn't even need to be there consciously.

I also never said I want or expect easy answers to philosophical questions or any kind of questions for that matter, I just said that Ernst doesn't seem all too interested in answering questions in order to do anything with that answer. Sure, you have questions regarding philosopy and histories of theory, but when those are answered, what then? Can you apply that knowledge anywhere? Or does it only deepen your understanding of A when you answer B, which is a question posed by A?

Also, if my post is missing some "s"'s, it's because of my shitty laptop keyboard starting to go to fuck.
>>
No. 56681 Kontra
>>56678
>First you claim that EC is just chatter for you and that we're not some academics imageboard. Then you instantly turn around and talk about research bringing up new questions. What is now? Just idle chatter, which is not congruent at all with "serious discussion" - which is what I expect on the EC, or is it really trying to delve deeper into things?

Chatter. But chatter does not mean that you have to exclude academia at all costs. I can chatter about academia or bring it up in chatter.

>you should know that you a) can't possibly ask ALL questions and b) if you only keep asking question, you will never find an answer, so you MUST concentrate on the question at hand.

Yes, I have some problems with it. But I know that what you describe, the selection process and the boundary-making, are crucial and quite a craft in research. I'm working on this and I already did write longer texts that made this necessary but I will have to train that more ofc. But then again EC is not there to actually fulfill my academic path or my general realm of interest that is mostly satisfied by academic books and articles. I'm not looking for actual research answers here nor do I expect that to happen. You are right that EC is quite free-flowing, like most imageboards. Here I can do, what I cannot in proper research. But I also think it is not that simple. Because in research you have to be open to a certain extent to allow new questions and a change in course, probably not when nearly finishing ofc.

>And your arguing with regards to the precision of the question is just a cop-out to not having to provide an answer.

I did not want to provide an answer and I already said why. I still think it would help in being precise though, but I don't want to do that work.

>a logically presented different point of view. I know it's hard to change one's point of view, especially with how ingrained the opinion in question already is, but it is possible.

Right, that might have happened, I cannot remember anything though at the moment. Meaning it might have happened, I can imagine that. But I don't remember that. So it wasn't that noteworthy, but it still might have happened though.
Sometimes I'm stuck between certain views as well.

>and from your reply I could infer that you could at least gain some entertainment, even if you refused to answer that question.

I did give you a direct answer:
>heated discussions here serve as examples for me to get more clear about conflict lines that have been existing over decades and even centuries, and to know arguments: this in a way gives me insights

>because is this an actual philosophical question or is it about the life situation of the poster

It's both and it can be brought together. Epistemology can be philosophical as well as psychological and/or sociological.

>which of course is a really dumb thing to think about because you can never get an actual answer to that if the poster doesn't answer. And imo questions that can't be answered shouldn't need to be asked.

You say if the poster doesn't answer (possibility still there), in the next sentence you say the question cannot be answered anyway (the possibility is denied).
I think it is not a really dumb question because the answer to this question sheds light on why you write what you write, from your point of view that would mean to be self-reflexive.

This brings me to this:
>Sure, you have questions regarding philosopy and histories of theory, but when those are answered, what then? Can you apply that knowledge anywhere? Or does it only deepen your understanding of A when you answer B, which is a question posed by A?

To gain an insight on how you acquire knowledge and why you know what you know can actually change what you know which might change how you act since your knowledge changed and this might change your interaction with your environment. Your knowledge shapes your interactions with the world is the thesis here, a sort of template that amongst other things changes via self-reflexivity one could say.

Then again it helps me understand, first of all I want to understand in that case. Needless to say that there are insights that are valuable to act upon the world and change that. I don't know in which way this and above touches upon the debate between idealism and materialism, and I know that some approaches try to go beyond that conflict. But getting a better knowledge of this takes time and as you pointed out, one cannot answer all the questions Perhaps some insights aren't showing themselves as straightforward and easily traceable in their effect as you want them to be or think they have to be (your ownexpectations of something!).

>Which on the one hand tells me that I struck a nerve, but on the other hand I want to remind you that I was talking about a profound, or "background" smugness that doesn't even need to be there consciously.

I'm frankly puzzled, because you still think smugness is present, and you striking a nerve means, first of all, I answer your proposition that Ernsts are smugly people. Ofc then I have to talk about this. Because you really have to tell me about background smugness. Perhaps you confuse simple (maybe even critical) debate for smugness. I mean any debate with differing points of view could involve smugness as this means both parties, first of all, try to stick to their beliefs, which implies being convinced of your own point of view.

>I just said that Ernst doesn't seem all too interested in answering questions in order to do anything with that answer.

Might be. But meandering isn't just bad either. Only meandering likely won't lead you anywhere as you already said. But right place and time perhaps, and perhaps EC is not the place for determinate solutions and clear cut selections. Usually, those fat philosophical textbooks aren't clear like 1+1=2 in most cases anyway. Then again the whole process you imagine is still a back box to me. What problems to tackle should end in an answer that Ernst can then apply to resolve the problem?
Also, did you study something related to engineering or computer science? Application and solution to me at least seem like bread and butter of engineering.

I'm really tired now and perhaps there are mistakes in this.
>>
No. 56684 Kontra
Fucking German autidm ruins yet another thread
>>
No. 56692 Kontra
>>56684
I'm pretty sure it's also always the same two Germans.

t. one of them
>>
No. 56694
I do get a feeling that a lot of the times when we discuss stuff, we talk past each other. But tbh, that's 100% expected when trying to talk about something very specific. Unlike science, discourse does not have a strictly defined "language" to operate inside of, so the first 5000 words of a discussion of something slightly complicated is just the two parties defining terms, until they can finally get to the heart of the matter. The discussion usually dies down before it reaches that point.
Just one of the many reasons language sucks.

Also, I have a personal sin of my own. When I'm talking about stuff I have cursory knowledge of, and another poster tells me to read a book about this very subject in order to better understand it, I lose interest, because it feels like I've just been given homework before I can continue posting. I ain't fucking reading the entirety of phenomenology of spirit just to qualify for an online forum discussion, fuck it.

I guess my approach to learning has always been to piss off someone knowledgeable by spouting half-informed bullshit about a subject they're an expert on, and have them do the work of educating me on the finer details while calling me a retard. It works almost every time, except for when they just outright say "read a book nigga".
>>
No. 56697
>>56681
Right, I think I start to understand.
You enjoy the "chatter" and the meandering for its own sake, without expecting to gain anything from it.
For me, frankly, it's quite exhausting. My job has me reading through trite bullshit all the time just to extract one or two useful pieces from it, which in turn led to me almost not reading anything anymore in private (which is a shame because I have about 20 books in my shelf that I still haven't started), and then coming to Ernstchan and - and that's probably where I am all too naive - expecting to learn something new, since we're all so diverse, different ways of life yadda yadda, but I tend to forget that the ernstness of course provides, or tends to provide, a completely different life experience than what is considered "normal". It's like going to a restaurant and ordering a steak medium rare and you get a well done. When asking the waiter, he tells you "but that IS medium rare here".

>Because in research you have to be open to a certain extent to allow new questions and a change in course, probably not when nearly finishing ofc.
Yes, and the keyword here is "to a certain extent", because of course, if the new question is extremely interesting and worth pursuing, you do that, but that is also something you need to decide and assess beforehand, is that question relevant enough. That said, you usually have a working hypothesis (or "Fragestellung" as they like to say) that you should at least keep your eyes and and not stray in a completely different direction. Of course, and I know that from experience, erstens kommt es anders und zweitens als man denkt, but if your subject of research is A and B and C are related, and Z in a general sense too, you shouldn't drop everything and check Z.

>You say if the poster doesn't answer (possibility still there), in the next sentence you say the question cannot be answered anyway (the possibility is denied).
That was a matter of formulation, I should have worded it differently. Of course what I meant was "if the poster doesn't answer your question, you will never get the answer" and went from there.

>I think it is not a really dumb question because the answer to this question sheds light on why you write what you write, from your point of view that would mean to be self-reflexive.
But what if I lack that self-reflection? Or am not interested in it? Or already know the answer and just won't give it to you? I mean for all you know I could be shitposting and humoring you and be well aware of that while making you believe it was a serious discussion. Which, of course, IS an answer to the questions, albeit a wrong one that leads to a completely different path.

>Then again it helps me understand, first of all I want to understand in that case.
What do you mean by "understand"? Understanding is always directed. You can't just generally understand into the air, you are always trying to understand SOMETHING. What is it that you are trying to understand? This is again what I was mentioning, you talk about understanding and knowledge, but to what end? More knowledge to understand more knowledge to understand?
I am sorry, but that is a mindset I just can't even start to comprehend. In my experience there are mainly two types of minds: The life oriented minds gain knowledge and then apply that to create something, or more general to see an effect in real life. The mind oriented minds are content with gaining knowledge for its own sake and of top of that, gaining only the knowledge necessary to better gain knowledge, to put it in a rather polemic way.

As for the smugness, you could have just handwaved it as the throaway line it was, but they way you (plural) seem to take offense to that specifically and not the other things I said, yes, that is exactly why I think I struck a nerve. And the fact you are still trying to justify and explain tells me there is something, even if it's just in the background or subconscious, that hit. Otherwise you could have just said "no" and be done with it, because then I had to start a "no u" chain.

I am not agreeing with your black box approach. Because just screaming questions into the ether won't lead to anything, you at least have to have some kind direction to go, because the way you described it, the output for your black box seems not determined. And apart from that, a black box approach can be useful for generating basic models, because you only look at input and output and don't care about what happens in the middle, thus having to work with less parameters.
And yes, you are right in that I have studied something engineering related, but I don't think it has shaped my approach to life. I think, and to come back to the mind dichotomy, that people who are more practically oriented choose those fields because it corresponds to their nature, and not the other way round.

>>56684
>american whining about ruined threads
>implying the thread wasn't shit to begin with

t. other German
>>
No. 56699
>>56697
Hm, you seem to have a different internal definition of "learning" than I do.

To me, acquiring new ideas, arguments, opinions, concepts, knowledge in general is almost worthless in itself. I still consume a lot of information, but I do not deem it as useful, interesting or important until its merits can be tested in some way. Hell, I can sit here and come up with hypotheticals all day, it'd be categorically indistinct from any other type of information.
What turns information into "knowledge", to me, is the act of unraveling the idea into a system of arguments, a "machine" of interconnected arguments, if you will. And if the idea survives the process, or at least survives long enough, then that it is some kind of evidence that the idea has merit. Like, the process of dissecting the idea bone by bone IS the act of learning. Learning, as opposed to simply consuming.
And what better way to do that than through discourse with someone looking to prove you wrong?

It is not a 100% reliable way of turning information into knowledge, as it relies on the abilities of the opponent and yourself, but that's a problem of knowledge acquisition in general.

I can't quite describe it, but there's almost a platonic relationship between face value information / statements, and the knowledge one acquires when dissecting it. One can have a long-winded debate discussing a completely absurd idea, but still learn a kind of abstract truth about systems and relationships and processes and ideas and how they interact with each other, by simply observing how "thought-objects" behave when colliding with each other in a debate.
>>
No. 56700 Kontra
addendum: if one wishes to "learn new things" by simply reading text rather than engaging in autistic discussions, the optimal strategy is to go to wikipedia and repeatedly hit "random"
If one wishes to read content, message boards are a bad place to look, because message boards are not designed to host content, but to provide a means of interaction through text. You'd think it'd be a pretty big hint that the engine is designed to continuously wipe all content that gets posted.
>>
No. 56702 Kontra
>>56697
>In my experience there are mainly two types of minds: The life oriented minds gain knowledge and then apply that to create something, or more general to see an effect in real life. The mind oriented minds are content with gaining knowledge for its own sake and of top of that, gaining only the knowledge necessary to better gain knowledge, to put it in a rather polemic way.

I don't really think these are as separated as you present it. Ofc mine is gradually thought more on the knowledge for its own sake. But as I said some knowledge is not immediately visible in its effects to an observer. First of all I'm interested in historical question, I'm a historian sort of. I want to understand the present, history helps. And understanding the present can help to identify narration etc. structures that can be shaped differently, which would be step two, which also demands more knowledge than that.

It also reminds me of Heinz von Foersters separation about questions that can be answered (usually mathematics, [formal] logic) and questions that cannot be answered.
You know I'm meandering rn, but the problem is the complexes I'm trying to drill upon are big, very big and very much thought about in philosophy, I have a hard time reading all that and also understanding it thoroughly, you just don't read a book and then you understand it all. I guess you know that it takes a lot of time to really understand things. One example would be why humans classify and what consequences that has (I have a book here about it, but many pages), digital/discrete thinking, what does that mean? Mean for what you ask? Well, broadly speaking for how we live (together), meaning in what consequences does our own functioning have, and is it changeable? This would also entail looking for a paradigm of functionality, why do we think in terms of functionality? Well, it works would be the simplest answer. But does the decision for functionality, for thinking in functionalities have consequences? What are the blind spots, when making this decision so to speak.

>The life oriented minds gain knowledge and then apply that to create something, or more general to see an effect in real life

Why do you think that thinking about thinking has no effects on thinking itself which in turn could have "real life" consequences? Imagine it like a feedback loop. I cannot articulate it better, but to me you take think for granted, whereas I'm not taking it for granted, or as simple as you think it is. This might be due to our different fields of interest, as one factor at least.

I fully aware of my meandering, I know it is a problem and I know I have to cut it down to a workable amount. But even this is a process that can take time. I have a pdf here that deals with the topic, that goes from topics to questions, to problems, and then sources to engaging with them and building arguments. I've done that before without consulting a written guide extensively, but the further I dive into philosophy and history the more pressing becomes sorting/organization.

>it corresponds to their nature, and not the other way round.

Well, we have had this countless times before and this is what I meant when I said this board helps in identifying conflict lines. I'm a sort of materialist, but maybe that is wrong to say, and even more precise would be to say I set up relation as primordial. So what this means then is that I don't think there is a sort of isolated nature of persons, but persons and their preferences are shaped in relation to their "outside world", to what they are in relation. It's not the terms of a relation that are first, but the relation that is crucial in making the terms.
Thoughts that are prevalent in engineering spilled into society and beyond the discipline's barrier long ago. Your socialization plays a big part in that. And to me, engineering is not something bad per se, it is just that focusing on it that much will necessarily create blind spots, that have consequences, if you treat the human like a computer, that has empirical consequences, for example in how to treat humans etc.

Regarding the black box, you can open a black box, or you can let it closed, engineering style (also behaviorism). I want to open the black box in order to understand what you mean. The black box I was talking about is your suggested process of Ernst finding solutions to problems. What should we solve? I want examples for this. You have evaded this question so far. Ernst should become an engineer for what problems exactly? I'm fascinated by that thinking, but I come from humanities, not engineering. I'm not interested in the details of the discipline that much (also I would like to know/understand them), my angle on the whole issue might be different than yours.
>>
No. 56707
>>56702
>But as I said some knowledge is not immediately visible in its effects to an observer. First of all I'm interested in historical question, I'm a historian sort of. I want to understand the present, history helps. And understanding the present can help to identify narration etc. structures that can be shaped differently, which would be step two, which also demands more knowledge than that.
Yes, and then what? You understand the world better, and then what are you doing with that? Are you trying to shape it for the better? Or are you leaning back thinking "I know exactly what is going on" and be content with that? Would you keep a surefire cure for (whatever kind of) cancer for you? If it's something we can all can profit from, why not share it?

And you have to explain to me why one would write a book about why humans classify, because to me it's perfectly logical, because it simply makes things easier. Imagine a world without classifying anything, hell, language is built upon classification. Humanity would have died out long ago if we didn't learn to classify toxic plants and dangerous animals. And just because we humans can articulate that doesn't mean it's not also something other living beings do. A hare can damn well differentiate between a carrot and a fox, it just doesn't write books about why it does it, because it's just too obvious. And that leads me to your question about why I don't give an answer to "what problems Ernst solves", because well, those are the kind of problems. Man-made problems just invented for their own sake, or maybe I should have used something more akin to "Problemstellung", in that it's not necessarily specific problems like world hunger or the decline of the west or something like that, but more things that arise from the numerous ramblings here, but don't have much worth beyond being an interesting thought experiment.

Which leads me to the point about real life consequences - well, what real life consequences do those thought experiments on a lower bavarian onions extrapolating forum have? When I build a chair I have a chair to sit on. When I develop a vaccine I can eradicate a disease. When I write a book about why humans classify I ... ? When I think about thinking, is there anyting beyond that? I just don't see it, for me, from the outside, it's all turning in circles, as I said, you learn about A to better understand B to better learn about A to better understand about learning B to better understand A....

And well, maybe your understanding of engineering is as superficial and prejudiced as my understanding of the humanities, because the "human as computer" thing is such a cliché and nobody but the most hardcore of reductionalists really think that, but it's a good way to start modeling and understanding the processes in the human body. I think neurosciences are a good way of briding the gap between the two fields, because on the one hand we try to understand the brain on a cellular level, but how exactly an assortment of neurons and their synaptic connections are actually enabling you to think and thinking about problems is still elusive. We need to make the connection between the matter and mind, so to say.

I think I wanted to say something else, but I had a really bad sleep and the weather is really affecting my mood. I am not trying to be belligerent towards you, if I ever gave the impression.
>>
No. 56724 Kontra
>>56707
First of all, I know that I'm an outsider to this discipline, while traveling to my parents today I read on the Macy Conferences on Cybernetics, and there the interdisciplinarity was celebrated, but editors and guests/members found that the problem really was that different disciplines with different views and different vocabulary collided, the cybernetic vocabulary was eventually used by all but the concepts they made of it were different. As historian of knowledge you would be interested in how knowledge travels and gets modified in the process. This would be one example. You learn to see those things in the present then. The humanities are notoriously at the margins today, because it's rather abstract for many people, doesn't mean it's all bs, though. The traveling of knowledge today is important, and you won't solve world hunger by doing so, nor do you invent an efficient and low-cost cancer treatment. But perhaps you can see how knowledge about AI travels today, you might be aware of old tropes that are sold to people as the hottest shit, the hype around things determines what happens with it. How is AI narrativized, when you know the history, you better understand the present of AI, and we are not talking about the laboratories here only. What then? Well, in the ideal case you would be able to tell a different story, against Silicon Valley, it's part of what could be changed, not world hunger, surely not. Trying to understand culture broadly speaking, then shape it, which will shape the empirical world. Not like a vaccine, but surely it is a factor among million of others that make up our world.
Another example would be our relationship to the past, we can reference and relate to the past in so many different ways, but these relations we have to the past have an influence on behavior and action in the present, in the sciences and in society, in politics etc, in social organization. Once you know how it works, you might be able to change it. Now ofc to me this is a black box rather, sadly. But it happens.
It's not just the things, the technological inventions you can write a history where technology is the driving force of history, but that has been debated. But it makes a difference in how you act according to what you think the past is about, maybe you see yourself as successor and act upon it, you might act differently, you you relate different, culture as in sybmols is abstract, culture can materialize as practices, as rituals etc. It's part of the empirical world, just like DNA or crops or buildings.

>And you have to explain to me why one would write a book about why humans classify, because to me it's perfectly logical, because it simply makes things easier. Imagine a world without classifying anything, hell, language is built upon classification. Humanity would have died out long ago if we didn't learn to classify toxic plants and dangerous animals. And just because we humans can articulate that doesn't mean it's not also something other living beings do. A hare can damn well differentiate between a carrot and a fox, it just doesn't write books about why it does it, because it's just too obvious.

The problem is and you said it already, is your "ignorance", you that it's obvious. I love how people say it's all obvious. But usually, the thing that is obvious might the thing that should be thought about. Ofc you are right, classification is useful, humans operate and strive well with it. But you are completely coming from biology and evolutionary theory here and think that is all that is to be said about classification.

Here is the book, you can read the ad text to get an idea why there is more to say about it.
https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/sorting-things-out

The thing with culture/humanities and the then what question is as follows. To understand what is going on and asking if this is good bad or whatever and then think about alternatives, the problem is that usually, humanities or social science and sociology are not in alone inc control of the fields they write about and thus there is a distance where different disciplines with lots of ignorance are distanced from each other and nothing ever happens in the worst case. For example you can write a history of logistics and show what supply chains means for different actors in different parts of the world, the organization of world trade is analyzed from certain angles. But the people actually organizing it don't read this books and they don't care about it. While these books point out problems and flaws and probable alternatives or changes, their power is marginal, because they are not in control.
That is where engineering comes into play as the action-based science where people think about solutions etc. but these people miss a lot of knowledge that other people have and they have blind spots and so on. So engineers provide solutions but based on their professional training they will think different then others about solutions and might miss crucial details. I mean Facebook, Google etc. are very invested in design and engineering, these companies are solutionists, they provide technological solutions to problems, that is part of their history and it's deeply embedded in their models. I guess they have good ideas, but the solutions they provide aren't the best. The question would be, do we let these people "improve" with their problem-solving engineering mindset or would a be a good idea to let some other people get heard for once? I have nothing against problem-solving per see, it has its place for very good reasons. But I have a problem with an authoritative character it can have, because from it comes a lot of ignorance by power tripping.

I'm not against it, I want to close gaps, but ignorance is a big problem. I know that it is not that simple in humans are computers, that has been the case maybe 60-70 years ago, yet these histories go on, change, the present still has relations to this past.
I'm aware that I'm not a studied engineer, I'm not interested in building good elevators, electrical vehicles, or computer networks. I'm interested in what social and cultural effects disciplines or computer networks have. That is something different, yet there is interference. I know there has been a debate between engineers and historians of technology about the deep knowledge of machines is necessary or not to write about the history of it. Well, I think this knowledge has to be there to a certain extent, but not the details. In the best case, one studied both but that is rarely the case and the problem. There are luckily scientists and people who studied STEM that went into history. Historians of science that write cool and interesting history that goes beyond lame celebration of technology and big biopic inventor stories.
The problem really is where certain disciplines interfere and different imaginaries about something appear. For example what are emotions? You will find different answers depending on whom you ask: physiologists/cogsci/psychologists/cultural theorists/sociologists and whatever else would be possible. And I'm really interested in bringing it together. I'm interested in science, but I did not study any of it as person. Yet science is not a narrow phenomenon that is only tackled by the scientists themselves, it branches out and you can view it from different angles. That is when questions of authority come into play, but usually this becomes shitshows and celebrations of ignorance.
>>
No. 56725 Kontra
>>56724

I'm tired again. There is more to say, you talk about thought experiments as if these don't actually happen, the thought experiment in itself is a phenomenon taking place and thus might make a difference, it is part of the worlds becoming so to speak. Ofc it's man made problems, different species, different problems (also same problems as other living beings but I think that is self explaning anyway).
To me nothing is really obvious except ofc in the take it because functional, it's practical and less exhausting to take it all as given and obvious. Ofc I make statements, but deep down I know that a plethora of different knowledge on a subject could wait. To you everything's obvious, polemically speaking, kinda the attitude of yours, oh we know everything already, it's useless to think about it more, A, B, C that's how it is. Like: Oh it's evolution/biology, oh it's physics stupid etc. I'm sure that in your field that is not the case and not your attitude towards certain things that need to be explored and explained and resolved. Perhaps it would help you to take a step back from that attitude
>>
No. 56733
>>56724
>>56725
So many assumptions!
First, I didn't call the humanities bullshit, and I didn't compare them in a judgmental kind of way to cancer research, those were merely examples of a real life palpable applications of knowledge. And it's pretty presumptuous to say that it's the humanities that aren't heard. The only ones who are heard are those that have or promise money. There are enough scientists and engineers that are also not heard.
And the thing about all those books is that it's all opinion. Someone (who has already been shaped by history, environment and the like) writes a book with their own opinion, and an opinion can never be empirical because if it was, it wouldn't be an opinion, but a fact. A piece of steel with a mass of 1kg will always have a mass of 1kg and it won't change its mass if someone writes a whole library of books about how it doesn't have a mass of 1kg (inb4 dissolution processes). Granted, this is a rather polemic example, but the humanities' understanding of the world is always based on humans and not on laws of nature. And laws of nature just can't be argued against. Anything a human being does can, but light will always have the same speed, no matter the frame of reference or whatever kind of unit it used. And that is an absolute a physicist can use for orientation. A historian can't, because as long as we don't invent time machines or at least "looking-back-machines", we can't get the full picture of what has happened before us and thus we are dependent on the accounts of the people who were there - who also always described everything relative to their own experiences - and the odd piece of whatever we find in the soil and if we don't know what it is we claim it has a ritualistic purpose, so it' all relative and it's all building upon each other. Could that also fit into the black box you are talking about? But in that case you'd have to try and elicit the whole chain of information ever since the first man.

>Sorting Things Out has a moral agenda,
Yes, and that is exactly what I was afraid of and frankly, what I expected. Classification as a means of keeping/seizing power and so on. As mentioned above, it's all opinions and by having a moral agenda, the authors apparently and ironically themselves use some kind of classification for making things invisible and not only are they having an opinion on something, but also an opinion they want to use to steer people into a certain direction because they are, themselves coming from a certain direction. Again, when describing how the human skeleton built there just are no opinions or moral agendas. Skull, clavicle, femur, those are also constants. Meanwhile the authors of that book are moving in a circular fashion, as described.

Next, the big tech companies are really bad examples, in fact, private companies in general are bad examples for what you are trying to say. Of course, in a perfect world, a bunch of smart people (which in a perfect world would be everyone) would gather, carefully check all the facts and povs and then make an informed decision. But this is just not a perfect world and I hope we can at least agree that for most of the world, money is what is deciding what is done and what not. And the internet is completely commercialized. Do you really think Google wouldn't hear those voices if they made them more money? It's just not profitable. There are enough great scientific concepts, but they're also not profitable and thus nobody cares or they even get suppressed actively, or even worse, the wrong ideas are heard, e.g. gender bullshit in the german language. We're in the same boat here man.
And do you think everything is run by engineers or what? That there is a big engineer boss who tells the engineer mooks to engineer something? Engineers are as much workers as others, just with a different skillset. They solve the problems they are told to. You act like there's some international engineer conspiracy to suppress the great teachings of the historian. In fact I don't think any engineer or scientist would mind hearing what a historian has to say, unless it's the same old "you are oppressing people with your research/why don't you change your whole methodology to make it more appealing to me/why are you using professional language, nobody understand what you are saying".

Speaking of history of science, what scope are you suggesting here? What I mean is that for example when writing any kind of paper you have to do already historical research, in that you have to go and look what people have already done and what is the current state and you can't just cite big books (although some people do), because primary sources are preferred, which for example means that if you are writing something about the Gram staining, you cite the original paper from 1890 or whenever it was. And of course you also need to critically evaluate the results of those before you when comparing them with your new findings and here is where that whole "nothing is obvoius" thing is really starting to get on my nerves - because if my methodology is sound, my equipment works as intended and thus the results are with almost 100% certainty also sound and it just so happens to disprove earlier findings, the last thing I need is someone coming in with their opinion or "general consensus" and that is something that has been going on for too long. From Galileo to crazy newer physicists, there have always been some assholes trying to argue with facts and that is why I am such a staunch opponent to yielding even just a little bit to anyone trying to argue. In fact, I wish the sciences would go even further into the other direction. Facts above all, no paradigms, no opinions, no consensus on things that have clear results. Just the facts, and if those facts invalidate the old "general consensus", so be it. End of tirade, I am tired too.

Concerning the thought experiments, those were chosen in contrast to actual experiments, because yeah, by uttering a word it's been brought to this world, thus basically every story, even if fictional, is actually part of this world if it's been told to someone, but you're using absurd hyperbole in your argumentation. Thought experiments are thought experiments because in some way or the other they can't be carried out irl (be it because a humane society wouldn't just chain people to a stone in a cave) and/or because they are used for illustrating something, like Schrödinger's Cat. But merely illustrating something doesn't yield any actual result, does it? There is no new knowledge generated from it, just passed on. And THAT is what I meant.

>(also same problems as other living beings but I think that is self explaning anyway).
>To me nothing is really obvious
You cheeky cunt :^)

And to reply to your last remark: I most certainly do not think we know everything, I am just picky with the knowledge I consider worth pursuing (as are you), but that comes down to personal preference, obviously. Also, I hate my field.

Also also, this discussion with you led to a new insight: I am too unprecise in my writing when discussing things on the internet. I value brevity, but I lack the skill to actually apply it accordingly.

Last, fuck my laptop keyboard, I think the S is dying
>>
No. 56742 Kontra
>>56733
I'll answer you within the next days. Our discussions (because I'm sure we have been arguing before many times) are very well suited to make visible conflict lines and understandings. You were talking about different angles.
>>56678
>I know it's hard to change one's point of view, especially with how ingrained the opinion in question already is, but it is possible.

We have this here, humanities and STEM. From a humanities point of view I read your stuff and I ask myself about your expectations towards things and I wonder where they come from. I ofc classify myself: I think about your thinking, about how it falls into a paradigm scientific realism at first glance. The words you choose, the arguments you make, the things you consider etc. I see you embedded in cultural webs that shape you and your thinking and acting. Science works, and I'm only engaging with science on that level I'm writing about for a short time, so you cannot expect too much from me. One thing I found interesting is that the mathematics of quantum physics works and is applied but that the philosophy is unclear and many interpretations compete. A physicists told me that today's physics is often about "shut up and calculate" and not really about the philosophical implications. And that physicists usually don't look much into older books, because it's not the newest standard. So history in physics done by non-historian physicists is a very narrow kind of history. A different example would be this (I did not read it but it sounds very much like cultural history): https://www.jstor.org/stable/27757315

But I'm already writing a post that will become way to long again.
>>
No. 56745
>>56648
The immaterial consciousness stops existing without it's material base being sufficient to live. Only the material body changes in decay.
>>
No. 56746 Kontra
>>56745
*its
>>
No. 56747 Kontra
>>56742
Yeah physicists are a special case because they quickly reach a realm where you must speculate and "philosophy" (in the common layman's meaning). Quantum physics is such a thing, or the string theory or what was before the big bang when time and space weren't separate and such stuff. If you go in that direction it becomes really esoteric really fast, and as you say "shut up and calculate" is a good summary, because what happens beyond those calculations can be left to the philosophers.
I am looking forward to your reply.
>>
No. 56804 Kontra
>>56733
>There are enough scientists and engineers that are also not heard.

Which is a problem. Do you have some examples? I think the humanities and social sciences developed explanations to describe these phenomena. Besides money, there are also notions like the attention economy, social relations and images, that interfere with science and its development.

STEM is axiomatic, humanities are not. Nonetheless both humanities and social science operate with empirical data. Their objects of research are part of a/the world. And like STEM they argue for what is the case and what is not. And like in STEM debates occur. STEM are different in that regard as the axiomatic character makes a difference to what is debated most of the time.
>According to the ideal of explanation and understanding, every science searches for inferential connections between facts in the section of reality for which the science is responsible.

>the authors of that book are moving in a circular fashion, as described.

You say it's paradox and a problem. But what if what is just the case, you cannot describe it in the fashion of STEM and deductive logic, because reality in that case doesn't apply to it.

>Classification as a means of keeping/seizing power and so on.

Without reading that will be part of the content I suppose. Yet it should be possible to describe something while being part of it. So you cannot separate yourself from it, ok. Does that change the fact that classification has real life consequences for people, groups, social organization etc? The ideal that is implied in your expectation is that you can neatly separate object and observer, scientist and object of inquiry. There is distance. A distance that cannot be upheld in the humanities where the object is the subject in a sense.

>tech companies and humanities
>It's just not profitable

Well, yeah. Humanities try to explain what is going on but there are interests and also knowledge divergence. Because people like Zuckerberg grew up with certain knowledge. The Californian ideology is the combination of profit and world building, both should be combined according to that entrepreneurial vision, which can be traced into the US counterculture and knowledge that was circulating and mutating there, to use a biological notion. But I will refrain from that in the end, and better use the term of knowledge modification due to circulation and actors that e.g. selectively appropriate knowledge/theories about something etc. And to clear something up: as historian mainly interested in knowledge (which includes sciences), I'm not interested in truth of knowledge (I'm interested in that philosophically maybe), but in what is deemed true historically and not just inside the sciences so to speak, but also outside of it. Which brings me to a theory that is used for that. Performativity, the belief, that action is producing knowledge and social structures etc. One example would be sciences producing boundaries. Scientists have to actively establish boundaries again and again to make sure what their field is about, what does not belong to it (you have to decide what to exclude simply said), the same applies to objects of research, colleagues. Heck, even what is scientific and what is not relies on activity, on performative acts by actors. Money will interfere with that, but not only. These are very subtle observations. But they are frames to explain and argue what is the case. You can also say science consists in geniuses inventing something, but I think we agree this is pretty much a bad explanation that cannot account for much.

>And do you think everything is run by engineers or what? That there is a big engineer boss who tells the engineer mooks to engineer something? Engineers are as much workers as others, just with a different skillset. They solve the problems they are told to. You act like there's some international engineer conspiracy to suppress the great teachings of the historian. In fact I don't think any engineer or scientist would mind hearing what a historian has to say, unless it's the same old "you are oppressing people with your research/why don't you change your whole methodology to make it more appealing to me/why are you using professional language, nobody understand what you are saying".

Ha, the last one I only ever heard people accusing the humanities of. But the basic sets are learned differently then in STEM.
No, I don't think everything is run by engineers. But the engineer is an interesting figure. The numbers of engineers are very high in comparison to other time periods. So the engineer has a certain significance for our times, our world and its shape, don't you think?
At the beginning of the 20th century, perhaps with first steep rise in the 1920s, social engineering was a thing. The realm of the social and the knowledge of engineering were brought together to organize, to shape the social, to regulate it. Mostly by the interest of governments, governments have been interested in regulating the social for quite a long time. Unsurprisingly, the state/governments needs to organize the social. There exist many historic sources that are useful for a historic inquiry on the coming into being of the state, writings on the raison d'etre for example and what to do in order to fulfill it. And likewise, source to check on how that knowledge might have been applied concretely. btw it might be interesting for you to read about the mediality, or a medial constitution of human beans.
Likewise, big tech has interests and visions, and yes ofc the engineers are workers, a very important note tbh. What I'm interested in his how these workers apply their knowledge and shape the social, technosocial infrastructure and so on. It's more about engineering knowledge, techniques and methods applied, I'm not proposing an evil essence of engineering, less engineers, as you seem to assume. To treat a problem with the knowledge of engineers is different than to treat it with the knowledge of a social scientists. And the difference is important, because it makes the difference in what the world becomes, how things are dealt with and their consequences for social life generally spoken. More concretely the design of apps, the application of engineering knowledge and visions of social engineering as a good thing and intertwine and have effects on teenage life in the west for example. On how we perceive the certain things. For example Tiktoks design allows for a different relation of its user towards each other than on Instagram or Facebook. The whole digital infrastructure has impact on modes of human labor, on the extraction of nature, and what humans can know, how humans organize etc etc. I did not read all the piles of papers and books on how that turns out very concretely but be sure that people have tackled this and can give you examples. Humanities don't have laboratories to test their thesis under ideal conditions freed of messy RL factors that can interfere that research. Humanities might be the attempt to engage with it rather than getting away from it to get make a certain knowledge possible.
>>
No. 56805 Kontra
>>56804

>In fact, I wish the sciences would go even further into the other direction. Facts above all, no paradigms, no opinions, no consensus on things that have clear results. Just the facts, and if those facts invalidate the old "general consensus", so be it. End of tirade, I am tired too.

That statement in turn could an example of a certain belief system (belief by me is always understood as being convinced of something). Perhaps scientism?

>because if my methodology is sound, my equipment works as intended

philosophy of science as well as history of science could spark debates for examples about the role of (measuring) apparatuses. I'm not very familiar with the debates, you might have heard of it. I know scientists in their own disciplines can be very critical, but like in every disciplines not all members engage very much in meta problems of their respected discipline. Not all historians ponder deeply about writing history (producing results), they eventually have to learn about it ofc, but how much they are invested or take paths that are walked many times an work very well, so not too much thought needs to be invested about this. That does not imply that these discussions call all science bs. It usually means that something like scientific realism has become questionable, which is not necessarily the abandonment of science itself. There are different options on how to proceed afaik.

>hus basically every story, even if fictional, is actually part of this world if it's been told to someone

YES! Narration and fictions in general have an as the yare part of the world effect and move people for example. You can explain how people join the IS physically by elaborating on energy conversation etc. but the effect of fictions, symbols and narratives is part of humanities.
Thus
>merely illustrating something doesn't yield any actual result, does it?

Well, not all illustrations, fictions etc. yield important results, but they have effects of varying degrees.

>You cheeky cunt :^)

Guilty of being aware and still pressing reply

>I am too unprecise in my writing

A problem most people and also researchers struggle with, precision and writing good texts is a craft that takes time and training.
>>
No. 56820 Kontra
>>56805
I'm reading atm and the topic is close enough to make an addition here.

In many regards, the digital landscape works with models of users as black boxes, I/Os are determined to solve problems, whatever those are, only the "engineers" know. The problem is that by choosing to take this angle and apply the knowledge, you disregard the internalities, the inside of users which is basically the tenet of (classical) humanities, all that is irrelevant to the problem solving, but disregarding all this has consequences, basically, you have inclusionary/exclusionary consequences via decision making. You still "solve a problem" but perhaps by choosing to tackle the problem with this engineering mindset, you produce a range of other problems. The problem then is that some never acknowledge this and preer to stay ignorant and rely in the same methods to solve these new problems.