This is probably the best (and most effortul) way to aquire the knowledge initialy.
I did it a lot back in school, then few months upto a year later I would forget most of the material all the same.
I'm already rereading the most valuable books and it does help to retain their knowledge.
I guess doing spaced repetition every x time would help even more.
I feel that rereading and to a larger extent spaced repetition are very wasteful.
I think spaced repetition is not every constant set of time but rather every increasing set of time, like reviewing in a week, then a month, then a year, etc. basically reviewing when you're about to forget. I don't think it's even necessary to review it in the same manner, as long as it causes you to remember, it's probably fine.
As examples of reviewing in different manners, you can "review" by applying that knowledge or learning on top of it. Like you can read about an alphabet, then review by practice writing it, or review by learning words that use that alphabet. In that way, "reviewing" is not a waste, as you can gain new knowledge or experience. Spaced repetition is merely trying to improve retention by putting increasing spacing between the recollections of that knowledge.
I am.
About 70% are technical books related to my job (SWE) and the rest are combination of textbooks and popular science in fields that I find very interesting.
If for some reason I lose interest in a book then I just stop reading it and don't mind if I don't remember anything from it.
I think consciousness is one of those things that is not defined well enough for us to understand it.
Until there is a breakthrough in the understanding of consciousness itself there won't be any real conscious ai.
It's like when we learned to fly, we needn't understand how birds' wings work.
We had to understand the principles of aerodynamics or what is flying itself.
That's why I think imitating the brain won't work, (deep learning etc.) just like the early attempts to fly didn't, even if we'll know the function of every single neuron.
You can't prove even that.
If you examine it closely, the argumnent only proves that "it" thinks.
"It" is not necessarily an "I", for what restricts the thinking to an I (i.e a part of reality)? It could be the whole reality that does the thinking as far as the argument goes.
It proves itself if you define "I" as the same as the experiencer of the thinking, but "I" (as many other complex word) is much more overloaded.
Unfortunately all our word definitions seems shaky, if we want to describe something that is the base requirement of those very definitions.
Maybe the best we can do is to deconstruct the above using more simple or base terms, but the meaning of those terms maybe also depends on the content of experience not the mere fact of experience:
I experience thought -> experience of thoughts exists -> experience exists -> something exists
So upon experiencing thought you may conclude that "something exists", or "there IS something"...
Of course you can. You know it to be true that you posses consciousness because you experience it directly. What is impossible (empirically) is knowing that about anyone or anything else.
We know there is thinking. There is no reason to believe that subject-object duality has any basis in reality, or that any individual, including our "self", has a sufficient delineation to consider it an independent entity.
More fundamental than thinking is experience itself.
Regardless of whether there is a "you" or if it's some amalgamation of state that is loosely bounded together and "fooled" into thinking it is a unity, something is
there experiencing. At least in my frame there is.
This isn't something you can prove because it comes any sort of structure capable of doing proving. It's just something that's a given and you start from there.
Descartes' "Meditations on First Philosophy" is the originator of this idea. While it is dated, the form of its principal argument hasn't changed.
With regards to conscious unity, there is at least a weak form of it in the sense that you can't experience others' experiences. While it is possible that your own experience may not be fully unified, it is (very likely) disjoint from others' experiences.
You can experience another person's experience when you see them smile or cry. We call it empathy in modern parlance. The hogan twins joined at the head have an even more direct connection to each others' experiences:
I've never been very moved by ideas that I can't know or share other people's feelings, or other fanciful ideas like their blue is my green. It's more reasonable to assume they are like me because we share similar hardware (DNA) and software (Culture). Others hands look like mine, more or less. Others legs are like mine, more or less. And so others perception of green is like mine, more or less.
Telling me that my experience is prime, or fundamental doesn't tell me much. Similarly, saying I think therefore I am doesn't tell me much. What then am I and what is existence? I think therefore I am only as much as I think I am. And sometimes I forget myself.
I used it few times, it's as good as the others.
I don't think there ever will be a silver bullet, what works for some companies won't work for others.
The real issues are people issues.
As in all things software, it's always more of a people issue. For PM software to be successful in an organization, you need someone in a position of authority to be the champion or directly supporting the champion that drives the team usage.
