Re: Using unmaintained plugins

[Bithov Vinu]

On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 09:35:06AM +0300, Jean Louis wrote:
> I cannot find myself in none of those subjects. My memory never
> decays. Please note that scientists have never proven where is human
> memory stored, so if this cannot be proven scientifically they also
> cannot prove that it decays. If you don't know where is something it
> is hard to say that something is not any more there. There are many
> reasons why memory can be blocked, one of reasons is trauma, drugs,
> accidents, and so on, but memore is always there just may not be
> easily accessible. When problems or obstacles are solved then memory
> may be accessed. Today my memory is better than before few years,
> better than before a decade or few decades.

This argument seems reductive at best - we are yet to know where
in the brain conciousness derives, or even if it is in the brain
at all rather than in a "soul" of some sort - yet the majority of
people agree that conciousness, as it is commonly understood, exists.

We (and by we I mean humanity as a collective) know the precise probabilities
that a subatomic particle (or wave??) is in a certain state.
We have no idea why it is that way, but we most certainly now it is.

> Some of abusive scientists researched which parts of brain have to be
> destroyed for memory not to be accessible, but that kind of research
> does not prove where is memory, it only proves that when some human
> parts are destroyed it is hard to access it.

There have most certainly been unethical and morally corrupt
experiments in the field of
psychology in the past (the Stanford Prison experiment and the Milgram
experiments come
to mind) but that does not mean that the results of these experiments
are incorrect. Of
course, the aformentioned experiments had methodological experiments, but still,
an unethical experiment may yield valid, repeatable results, even if it's means
and motives are hateful.

> According to calculations, there is not enough space in human body to store 
> the
> memory we record. It is similar to CPU and memory, if one destroys the
> keyboard already or monitor, memory cannot be accessed, but chip remains
> somewhere in existence.

I'm not a particular fan of analogies of humans to computers; I don't think they
do justice to the complexity and the beauty of every organism on
earth, especially
primates capable of higher level thinking.

> Especially me, who is one of them:
> https://html.duckduckgo.com/html/?q=children+who+remember+past+lives
>
> cannot easily just say that "memory decays".

I'm immediately skeptical of this claim - I have trouble believing that
you are able to remember your past lives - not just because there
is no research whatsoever that shows any evidence that the concept of past
lives exists. Regardless, this delves into the ideas of the supernatural,
which by its very nature cannot be explained through empirical research,
and more importantly, isn't the topic of interest on this mailing list
(though arguably nothing about this email chain, besides the occasional
mention of org-drill, makes it seem like it fits here). I can't rebutt
your point on this, not because there isn't valid rationalistic
reason to, but because it is entirely outside of the realm of science and
logic. At best I can bring up Occam's razor (from Wikipedia):

Occam's razor, Ockham's razor, Ocham's razor (Latin: novacula Occami),
or the principle of parsimony or law of parsimony (Latin: lex parsimoniae)
is the problem-solving principle that "entities should not be
multiplied without necessity"
or more simply, the simplest explanation is usually the right one.

...but I can't argue against your belief that you can "remember past lives"
any more than this.

> Repetitions methods I have been using as a child as I was in the
> environment where nobody knew better, neither my parents or
> grandparents neither teachers.

I think this might be me being overly cynical, but I'd generally lean
to being distrustworthy of
someone who claims to have unearthed (ancient?) knowledge and wisdom
in relation to memory,
that even the most advanced and experimental of neuroscience hasn't
hypothesised.

> Then I got the a sexy coach to teach me polynomials. Boy, I was getting it 
> right!
> She explained me so that I understand it in all details.

I really, really don't like how you phrased this. I can't find
any official GNU mailing list etiquette rules that aren't
in relation to formatting emails, but I feel like describing
your coach as first and foremost "sexy" is gross
and undignified. Again, this is personal preference, there
is seemingly nothing in the GNU etiquette to prevent this
(though I may certainly be wrong, I haven't done more than
quickly skim the rules).

> Professor of mathematics did not believe
> me when I got each of the tests perfect. I have even taken those most
> hardest polynomials from a friend in the subsequent grade so I knew
> already which tests will come and got myself well prepared. For
> professor it was phenomena he never have seen before. But since then,
> I have not been using repetition, I used methods to understand first
> each and every part of whatever miniscule or large subject of
> learning, especially I put attention to clarify all words by using
> dictionary.

I'm glad it has worked for you. This doesn't mean, however, that
the knowledge you reaped is valuable for everyone, as you seem to
be pushing it. The body of evidence surrounding spaced repetition, however,
is, and can, generally, be applicable for everyone. Of course, mnemonics
may have worked exceptionally well for you, but you may be the exception rather
than the rule - for the vast majority of people, using spaced repetition
will yield success (in terms of retention).

> > The Supermemo algorithm is simply a mathematical method of attempting
> > to calculate the optimum interval for review, from the most crude and
> > simple SM-0 to SM-2 (used in Anki/Mnemosyne) to SM-5 (org-drill) to
> > SM-18, the latest iteration.
> > It isn't a mnemonic in any sense of the word - I hope that you can
> > explain how you understand the Supermemo method to be like a
> > mnemonic.
>
> Definiton of mnemotechnics or mnemonics (synonyms) is that it is
> technique of improving the memory, reference:
>
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mnemonics#medicalDictionary
>
> and Wordnet:
>
> 1. mnemonic, mnemotechnic, mnemotechnical -- (of or relating to or
> involved the practice of aiding the memory;
>
> To say how your system, which improves your memory is not mnemonics
> only to "debunk" other systems comes from a conflict of interest, but
> any system helping the memory is mnemonics nevertheless.

Here's something that debunks this better than I ever could
(rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_dictionarium). There isn't really
much otherwise to be said. While technically the SuperMemo method may
fall under the "mnemonics" category, it isn't semantically similar to
what most people
think of when thinking about mnemonics. And to that point, I'd argue
that SuperMemo is
not a technique to aid the memory, rather, a method of analysis and
observation of memory.
Using Supermemo does not in and of itself improve one's memory,
instead, it exploits the
very biological nature of memory. The science surrounding the
biological mechanisms underlying the spacing
effect is explored in Piotr Wozniak's PhD thesis, linked here
(https://www.supermemo.com/en/archives1990-2015/english/ol).


> > You are most certainly right that the articles I linked may be
> > biased
>
> They appear biased, I do not say that their method do not work. People
> have various methods selling this and that, they don't like
> competition.

There is definetely a sense of typical free-market salesman rubbish
attached to SuperMemo, but the algorithm for SuperMemo-2 (the most commonly
used spaced repetition algorithm) is open source and
the basic information detailing SM-5 has been published (Optimization of
repetition spacing in the process of learning, Wozniak)
in sufficient detail to implement them in, say, Lisp or Python.
Your argument doesn't hold water with these algorithms -
a quick search on Google (!) Scholar reveals dozens of articles observing
students that used Anki vs students that did not use Anki, or similar
premises. I am yet to read an observational article questioning the
effectiveness of
expanding intervals (the basis of spaced repetition). Again,
although Dr Wozniak is most certainly trying to sell a product, his writing
is often richly referenced, esp. w/ reference to polyphasic sleep
(his work has been cited in Wikipedia articles surrounding polyphasic sleep).

> There are those who truly like to help, no matter what, so they will
> rather give more independent analysis.

I can't really argue against this, because fundamentally the
idea of relying on independent analysis (anecdotes) is a fallacy.

> Harry and many other people who mastered memory in such way to
> demonstrate it to public are proof that things remembered in first
> place need not "decay". I don't know why is it important to state
> so. My grandmother told me it is impossible to remember what I was
> doing before my fifth year, but I remember the taste of my toes when I
> was biting them as baby and my mother's nipples including the taste of
> milk. And so many thing I can remember what my mother doesn't, and she
> was adult back then. Then I met so many other people who remember
> better then me.

There are explanations for why people recall memories from before
the cut-off point for infantile amnesia, but it's far too much to
summarise adequately here. I'd advise you DuckDuckGo "infantile amnesia"
for breadth and detail. I'd also like to add that all memories aren't created
equal; declarative and procedural memories seem (?) to act very differently,
hence "you never forget to ride your bike".

> It is very hard to believe there is some "scientific proof" of memory
> decay. I will not tend to believe things when they are rather of
> authoritarian character.

They don't have to be, and aren't of an authoritarian charachter.
In fact, the bit (for want of a better term) of research that
kick-started memory science as a field was done independently
by Herman Ebbinghaus in the late 1800s, long before
the rigor and strict rules surrouding scientific research were
put in place. You can read his unfinished (!) studies on the
internet archive, free of charge.

A lot of the other points made in your email I have addressed previously.

On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 7:38 AM Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> wrote:
>
> * Bithov Vinu <bithov.vinub@gmail.com> [2021-04-19 23:17]:
> > I will most certainly look into the book you referred - as soon as I
> > get through my current backlog :)
>
> I am glad, just contact me privately I will dispatch the PDF>
>
> > I'm not certain that you understand what the Supermemo method is. It
> > lies on the following principles:
> > 1) memory decays at a predictable, rapid rate
> > 2) review reduces the rate of forgetting
> > 3) review at too early or late a time results in excess repetitions or
> > forgetting of knowledge respectively
>
> I cannot find myself in none of those subjects. My memory never
> decays. Please note that scientists have never proven where is human
> memory stored, so if this cannot be proven scientifically they also
> cannot prove that it decays. If you don't know where is something it
> is hard to say that something is not any more there. There are many
> reasons why memory can be blocked, one of reasons is trauma, drugs,
> accidents, and so on, but memore is always there just may not be
> easily accessible. When problems or obstacles are solved then memory
> may be accessed. Today my memory is better than before few years,
> better than before a decade or few decades.
>
> Some of abusive scientists researched which parts of brain have to be
> destroyed for memory not to be accessible, but that kind of research
> does not prove where is memory, it only proves that when some human
> parts are destroyed it is hard to access it. According to
> calculations, there is not enough space in human body to store the
> memory we record. It is similar to CPU and memory, if one destroys the
> keyboard already or monitor, memory cannot be accessed, but chip remains
> somewhere in existence.
>
> Especially me, who is one of them:
> https://html.duckduckgo.com/html/?q=children+who+remember+past+lives
>
> cannot easily just say that "memory decays".
>
> > (Those axioms aren't entirely true; when digging into the research you
> > find that frequent, early repetition negatively impacts the rate of
> > forgetting later on, but for the sake of argument, we'll ignore
> > this)
>
> Repetitions methods I have been using as a child as I was in the
> environment where nobody knew better, neither my parents or
> grandparents neither teachers. Then I got the a sexy coach to teach me
> polynomials. Boy, I was getting it right! She explained me so that I
> understand it in all details. Professor of mathematics did not believe
> me when I got each of the tests perfect. I have even taken those most
> hardest polynomials from a friend in the subsequent grade so I knew
> already which tests will come and got myself well prepared. For
> professor it was phenomena he never have seen before. But since then,
> I have not been using repetition, I used methods to understand first
> each and every part of whatever miniscule or large subject of
> learning, especially I put attention to clarify all words by using
> dictionary.
>
> > The Supermemo algorithm is simply a mathematical method of attempting
> > to calculate the optimum interval for review, from the most crude and
> > simple SM-0 to SM-2 (used in Anki/Mnemosyne) to SM-5 (org-drill) to
> > SM-18, the latest iteration.
> > It isn't a mnemonic in any sense of the word - I hope that you can
> > explain how you understand the Supermemo method to be like a
> > mnemonic.
>
> Definiton of mnemotechnics or mnemonics (synonyms) is that it is
> technique of improving the memory, reference:
>
> https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mnemonics#medicalDictionary
>
> and Wordnet:
>
> 1. mnemonic, mnemotechnic, mnemotechnical -- (of or relating to or
> involved the practice of aiding the memory;
>
> To say how your system, which improves your memory is not mnemonics
> only to "debunk" other systems comes from a conflict of interest, but
> any system helping the memory is mnemonics nevertheless.
>
> > You are most certainly right that the articles I linked may be
> > biased
>
> They appear biased, I do not say that their method do not work. People
> have various methods selling this and that, they don't like
> competition.
>
> There are those who truly like to help, no matter what, so they will
> rather give more independent analysis.
>
> > - of course, the latest iterations of Supermemo are pieces of
> > proprietary non-free software, and, ultimately, Piotr Wozniak's
> > motives will always be to sell you the software that he wrote and
> > invested his time into.
>
> Well now it explains it all.
>
> > There are definitely some snake-oil-like stuff on supermemo.guru,
>
> I would say, as I already know you a little and how you will be in
> rush to say so, don't say so, until you have exchanged opinions with
> those who have tried it out.
>
> Person's specific experience may be failure, but somebody else may be
> using it right, often I would need to see what is wrong in my
> application of a method and maybe I am doing something wrong. Once you
> and few other people have tried it out, and also tried other methods,
> then you could say that particular one does not work.
>
> > but a lot of the claims Dr Wozniak makes in reference to memory and
> > forgetting are scientifically sound (for proof of this, I'd advise
> > you read the Gwern article I originally linked; Gwern Branwen is an
> > independent researcher and his article is richly referenced and
> > makes conclusions based plenty of peer reviewed research).
>
> Harry and many other people who mastered memory in such way to
> demonstrate it to public are proof that things remembered in first
> place need not "decay". I don't know why is it important to state
> so. My grandmother told me it is impossible to remember what I was
> doing before my fifth year, but I remember the taste of my toes when I
> was biting them as baby and my mother's nipples including the taste of
> milk. And so many thing I can remember what my mother doesn't, and she
> was adult back then. Then I met so many other people who remember
> better then me.
>
> It is very hard to believe there is some "scientific proof" of memory
> decay. I will not tend to believe things when they are rather of
> authoritarian character.
>
> > I can't say I've done an extensive review of Harry Lorayne's work, but
> > from the bits that I've seen, I'm skeptical. I'm immediately
> > distrustful of someone for unbiased information if their occupation is
> > professional magician, even more so when he has written books with
> > titles as sensational and frankly nonsensical as "How to develop a
> > Super Power Memory", "Harry Lorayne's Secrets of Mind Power", "Memory
> > makes money" and, my personal favourite, "How to get rich using the
> > power of your mind". Now, I might be overly skeptical, but I generally
> > disregard sensationalised books written by someone with seemingly no
> > credentials whatsoever in favour of huge bodies of peer-reviewed
> > evidence.
>
> I think I have all of those books, just tell me. Well... can't help
> more than that. Harry's titles are not exaggerated. He is one of many
> who is eloquent and who made the methods closer to the public, but
> those are not new, they are ancient methods. There is nothing in those
> books that is impractical, like some vague practices that may not give
> you personal win. Each single method explained as soon as you learn it
> and do it, is giving you personal wins and you can do what you could
> not before.
>
> By the way I remember daughter of my friend in Messina, Sicily in
> Italy, we have let some of children movies play and she could speak
> the movie speech in real time with all words correctly spoken in the
> movie with proper time spacing between them, even without watching the
> video while having turned her back to the movie, and she could do it
> with other 30+ videos by choice. He father and my friend and mother,
> did not regard it as something special, as they could not compare it
> to many other children. She developed method in her mind to remember
> what is spoken in the movie while watching it, and with few
> repetitions over the time she remembered whole of the speech in the
> movie.
>
> > Mnemonics are definitely useful - I don't think I've ever argued that
> > they aren't, instead, what I'm arguing is that they aren't a panacea
> > to an indestructible memory.
>
> I never heard of destructible memory, but I know there is
> not-accessible human memory, in many examples of amnesia, trauma,
> accidents, problems in life, that is what happens and then again there
> are methods to regain it back.
>
> Another important factor is importance of application. Memory as such
> may be there, but unimportant to recall it. IMHO, the urge to apply
> piece of remembered information automatically recalls it. Let us say
> subject of verification of stones, in geology, when geologist has
> rocks on the table and proper tools, it will be easy to check it out,
> but maybe after years of not doing the job, due to lack of practical
> importance, those methods may not be easily accessible from
> memory. Then again put that same person in front of the rocks with
> same tools, person will start recalling.
>
> Personally, I have some artistic models that I have been making each
> time with my hands, and I feel that memory is there as soon as I would
> take the same tools in my hand. People call it muscle memory, I would
> rather say it is practice memory, practical application plus
> importance recalls the memory.
>
> Typing is one example, when person knows how to type, typing is blind,
> no looking into keys. It is muscle memory, but I would rather say
> practice memory. I can type the word "memory" but if somebody would
> ask me to say where exactly the key "e" is located I would need to
> think longer than what I would need to type. As I did not practice to
> find single letters, I have practiced to type words.
>
> While I can type on the whole keyboard blindly, including the ghost
> keys from other international keyboards, I would have some problems to
> reconstruct the whole keyboard from mind.
>
> If practice decays, recalling will apparently, not really,
> decay. Memory is stored somewhere, when practice comes back, recalling
> becomes automatic.
>
> --
> Jean
>
> Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns:
> https://www.fsf.org/campaigns
>
> Sign an open letter in support of Richard M. Stallman
> https://stallmansupport.org/
> https://rms-support-letter.github.io/
>