IceCream wrote:

you're assuming that everything you study has "facts". Philosophy, for the most part, doesn't.

The field's been around for thousands of years, of course it's established more than a few facts, or at least theories that the student should be aware of.

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance wrote:

[T]he Professor of Philosophy swings his finger around and points it at Phaedrus.
   "You, sir, what are the three kinds of particular rhetoric according to subject matter discussed?"
   But Phaedrus is prepared.  "Forensic, deliberative and epideictic," he answers calmly. 
"What are the epideictic techniques?"
   "The technique of identifying likenesses, the technique of praise, that of encomium and that of amplification."
   "Yaaas . . ." says the Professor of Philosophy slowly.  Then all is silent.

That ability to discuss a particular theory in deep detail without having to reference a source is primarily a matter of memory.  SRS is perfect for that.  It's not just a cute parlor trick, either.  Thought, whether deliberate or intuitive, operates on facts.  No facts, no thoughts.  (As with language learning.  No input, no output.)

Now, that doesn't mean SRS is necessary (people have been philosophizin' and polyglottin' for millennia without SRS), just that it may be beneficial.

I think a SRS could be useful for drilling basic philosophical facts, definitions, labels and theorems, especially at first-second year level. I wouldn't dismiss it.

If an SRS helps discipline your memory and analysis in a relevant area of enquiry then use it. Just make sure you ref any quotes (ie 'this is Kant's definition of a priori') or signal how terms may be contentious or have consensus.

SRS is neither a sufficient nor necessary tool for writing a good academic philosophical essay. But I think I would have benefited from using one, and it would have given me a great resource to come back to later.

I also agree that you need to 'get back to the books' and argue from within the texts, quoting and summarising and identifying issues/interpretations and outlining your argument. The most useful tools for this are surely: lectures -> (tutor) -> library (Google?) -> word processor (Powerpoint?).

Re SRS effectiveness you would also need to be careful about what/who you are studying and minimise/ref semantic ambiguity. If not, things will get out of hand. Examples:

Q: Define deductive consistency
A: Exactly one of the two sentences A and -A must always be derivable in a mathematical system (ref)

* fact based def but you need to ref this or give your own example/formula

Q: Define nihilism (Nietzsche)
A: 'We have measured the value of the world according to categories which relate to a purely fictitious world' (Will to Power)

* problem: Nietszche has different definitions of nihilism and interpretations and use of his work varies a lot.

Q: Define the term 'Her-stellen' in Heidegger
A: Sciences project a realm of possible objects of enquiry - producing (Herstellen) brings objects into an established project (Being and Time)

* problem: Heidegger's philosophy/focus changes over time and has delicate reading of German and Greek terms.

Start with questioning the meaning of life once every ten years in this body.  Continue with longer intervals in each subsequent lifetime for the next 3,000-4,000 years.  Then gradually free your mind from contemplative thought while absorbing into the uncontrived luminous nature of mind.  After a period of two or three Big Bangs and Crunches, among those who don't miss any reviews, 37% pass PLPT2

In terms of music, SRS could be used for aural training eg. intervals and chord identification...

SRS?

SRS software such as Anki spaces out your reviews according to a formula that looks like T = a x e^b, where a and b are variables and e is the Napier constant.

Why SRS for simple memorization?

According to the creators of SRSes and some psychologists, humans forget things at the rate a x e^b when we memorize simple information using a flashcard method. In an ideal situation, you only review a card when you forget what's on the card.

A sophisticated SRS is using a more complicated formula. But the idea is the same: You review when you forget. The math formula knows how you forget things when you do the flashcard thing.

Is an SRS good for other activities too?

Yes if the formula in your SRS can be applied to things you're doing. Also yes if you know a near optimal formula to be put in the spacing algorithm for your purpose. You might have to code a program to use your own formula though.

Otherwise, no. Let me give you some examples:

・I'm a boxer. Can I use it not to forget how to do a one-two punch?

Probably no. It doesn't seem muscle memory and usual brain memory work the same way. You need a radically different formula.

・Does it work for learning to land an uppercut on the opponent's chin?

No. You need a different formula to schedule your training sessions. Ask your trainer how often you should practice.

・I love music but suck at identifying chords. Can I use an SRS to train my ear?

Probably no. It works well only if your ears can be trained efficiently by following the formula in your SRS, which merely indicates the rate your brain forgets simple facts you learned through flashcards.

・I can hear all the chords like a pro but don't know their names. Can I use an SRS?

Maybe yes. But as far as I know, there is no reliable scientific research on how quickly our brains forget associations between sounds like chords and names for them. It could be different from a x e^b.

・Can I use it to memorize the fact that pi is approximately 3.14159265358979 and e is about 2.71828183?

Yes. That's the kind of thing the formula in your SRS is good at.

・Can I use it to understand the meaning of Euler's identity and its implication? I mean, I don't get why e^(i x pi) +1 = 0 though I can prove it.

Probably no. While reviewing the same problems again and again is good to improve your math skills overall, no one knows if it's best to do at the rate your brain forgets simple facts. Understanding and knowing are two different things.

Here are a couple famous quotes about Euler's identity for you:

"If this formula was not immediately apparent to a student on being told it, the student would never be a first-class mathematician." -Johann Carl Friedrich Gauss

"It is absolutely paradoxical; we cannot understand it, and we don't know what it means, but we have proved it, and therefore we know it must be the truth." -Benjamin Peirce

Whatever you say, I believe an SRS works for any intellectual pursuits.

If you think so, you can:

give anecdotal/scientific evidence that it's good to schedule your reviews/training sessions/whatever by T = a x e^b,

suggest an alternative formula to be used for a specific activity, or

at least give a solid argument to explain why you think so.

If you don't, you're not contributing.

Last edited by magamo (2009 October 21, 6:10 pm)

liosama wrote:

No.
Go read a damn book and understand it, challenge it.

I do read books, understanding and challenging them. I am a philosophy major with a 3.9. Maybe you should read the original posts in the thread before you jump in and angrily answer a question that doesn't exist; your post does not give enough credit to the innocent question I was asking. The original problem that was posed was along the lines of, "Why can't I remember much of the content and arguments from my first year?" and "Could an SRS solve that problem?" I did not ask how to engage in philosophical thinking, which is the imaginary question that you are answering. Don't you think it is ridiculous that I would ask you how to engage in philosophical thinking? A better person to ask would be my professors.

And everything else in which you wouldnt use ordinary flash cards for in the first place. It's that simple.

Ordinary paper flashcards are not very good for writing St Thomas Aquinas' "5 Ways" to rationally prove the existence of God. However, people who study philosophy do have to review these if they want to commit them to memory, so they read them over a few times and hope that they will stick. This is especially important for those who debate, do lectures, or engage in public speaking, since the information has to be brought up on the fly.

Dixon wrote:

magamo wrote:

[
Whatever you say, I believe an SRS works for any intellectual pursuits.

I agree that an SRS could work okay for almost everything as a form of initiating and scheduling practice. This would entail articulating good questions, but it may be impossible to fill the answer field adequately. If for example you want to practice some kind of special guitar riff, your SRS can prompt you into that type of practice. Obviously the "answer" would just be you playing. There would be no opposite side of the flashcard that I can think of now, but maybe in the future there will be some kind of Plug-In with music practicing software and Midi input. You play the riff and the computer evaluates if it matches the written music, and gives you a passing grade. For now, the evaluation of quality is up to us.

I can easily see how this would work with philosophy now. The purpose would be to improve speed at accessing and rehearsing one's own arguments and related knowledge on the topic, to better prepare for a defense of his stance on the fly.

K, the Original Poster 'gets it', I can leave this thread happily.

Edit: PS, my personal opinion is: don't worry about the formula behind the SRS. Your feedback is more important in regards to the progressive spacing. PPS, Use multiple senses! Keyword: supra-additive integration, brain rules (the latter being a book I found thanks to Thora)...

Last edited by ruiner (2009 October 21, 8:00 pm)

I contend that the ancient Western philosophers (especially those dealing with the art of rhetoric) would have loved SRS. This is because they were already using a variation of systematic memorisation - just without the software.

Classical rhetoric (from Aristotle to Quintillian) - basically dealing with crafting and delivering speech and prose but also the discipline of argument - had two areas (of five) devoted to retention and production of memory facts. These were: memoria (discipline of recalling arguments in a discourse) and inventio (systematic structures for argument).

Inventio is the systematic analysis of how to assemble proper arguments that support a thesis. Inventio relies on topoi ('places' in memory) that help to clarify how concepts relate (so there are topoi on law, evidence, logical analysis etc). These topoi could be learned and relied on in any given situation when a speech was needed (eg law court, funeral, marriage, philosophical debate).

Memoria (art of memory) wasn't about memorising a speech or knowledge, it was knowing how to  respond intelligently and persuasively to any given situation/need, especially re questions and refuting arguments. Attention was paid to creating structures that would aid memory. These included:
- an outline of the types of argument commonly used in discourse (divisio)
- mnemonic devices to assist speakers (there are a lot)

The rhetor (speaker/lawyer/philosopher) needed to gather items for instant recall in memory (knowing what might be useful later) and know when an example, an argument or logical form could be used in a debate. Most of these 'logical forms' in still in use today (taught in 1st/2nd year Philosophy courses) and in this context you can read the 'items' as philosophical terms/concepts (as defined and taught in the same courses).

If you have a clearly referenced and outlined set of argument types/forms used in philosophy, and a set of commonplace definitions as knowledge, you have a robust and clear set of parameters to use in debate/given situations. Naturally you can 'form your own opinion' and 'interpret' these forms and definitions eg in essays, but you're doing this on the basis of memorised and organised knowledge.

You don't need an SRS to do this (Aristotle or Quintillian didn't have one) but it could be a powerful tool to help you to get it and retain it.

Pfft, forget 'extensive reading', SRSing 'condensed reading' is what you want (keyword: Gabrielatos). ;p

If I ever decide to get back into martial arts, I'll have to experiment with SRSing visualization of drills progressively as I build a repertoire (learn the drill, master the drill, dissolve the drill), since it activates the same areas of the premotor cortex as the activity itself (Goleman, Social Intelligence p. 42).

PS - On the topic of explicit memory and implicit memory, there are multiple conflicting and ambiguous studies on how they relate/are separated, but I like the studies that talk of SR as 'priming'/'conditioning' and having implicit memory mechanisms underlying it, as well as the emphases on interactions between these models on the encoding and working memory levels. (Relevant Google searches: linking explicit/implicit memory, transitions from calculation to retrieval with spacing, SR as priming, SR as conditioning).

Last edited by ruiner (2009 October 22, 2:46 pm)

liosama wrote:

Dixon wrote:

liosama wrote:

No.
Go read a damn book and understand it, challenge it.

I do read books, understanding and challenging them. I am a philosophy major with a 3.9. Maybe you should read the original posts in the thread before you jump in and angrily answer a question that doesn't exist; your post does not give enough credit to the innocent question I was asking. The original problem that was posed was along the lines of, "Why can't I remember much of the content and arguments from my first year?" and "Could an SRS solve that problem?" I did not ask how to engage in philosophical thinking, which is the imaginary question that you are answering. Don't you think it is ridiculous that I would ask you how to engage in philosophical thinking? A better person to ask would be my professors.

And everything else in which you wouldnt use ordinary flash cards for in the first place. It's that simple.

Ordinary paper flashcards are not very good for writing St Thomas Aquinas' "5 Ways" to rationally prove the existence of God. However, people who study philosophy do have to review these if they want to commit them to memory, so they read them over a few times and hope that they will stick. This is especially important for those who debate, do lectures, or engage in public speaking, since the information has to be brought up on the fly.

I did read your posts. However, I was not clear in my response. Excuse me for my rage response, this is how I usually react to these threads titled learn by srs where Nukemarine always comes to the rescue with his expertise in SRS. Extensive reading is a 'memory technique' which every single academic will recommend to you, not only does it build a fort around the low level information down to the cell of each neuron but it lets you focus and think on the higher level. It does this with an advantages over simple srs'ing since you have actually read more, so you are bound to find out little bits and pieces that weren't mentioned in another text.

Is there a reason I'm mentioned by name in your reply when Dixon is quoting a post made by you before I even posted to this thread? In fact, it was that post he quoted that got me to originally respond. Just asking cause it looks like a jab at me.

Thing is, I agree with you. We need to read, listen, enjoy Japanese (or any subject we want to improve) more.  I also think people overuse the SRS usually by amounts such as learning 3000 kanji before getting into japanese. And I say that cause I'm guilty of it myself. It's that I find the benefits of an SRS too great to ignore.

Put it this way, last night four Japanese sailors just noticed I was reading a book (5 cm per Second) which happened to be in Japanese. What followed was a 90 minute enjoyable conversation pretty much in Japanese. I honestly believe had it not been for the various ways I used an SRS, that would not have happened. On the other hand, had I only used an SRS it also would not have happened. There is a balance point for each of us.

But yes, read a shit load of books, do a lot of mathematic equations, play lots of music, practice lots of Aikido, etc. You're not gonna learn about life just in a library.