Open your world, improve your health: learn a language

When I had finished the Dutch gymnasium, 18 years old, I didn’t know that I had taken there important steps towards a healthy life and a life that made me more open-minded. Then a gymnasium was a school that stressed language learning. Besides subjects like physics, maths, history, etc., I got French, German and English plus the classical languages Latin and Greek. Of course, I knew that the gymnasium was a school that educated for the university and asked intellectually a lot of you. What I didn’t realize then was that knowing several languages has a big positive impact on your mind and your physical health, especially if you keep using at least some of the languages you learned. And so I did. Even more, I learned also some new languages and in the end I had learned twelve languages (see here –in Russian – or see this blog). Although I forgot some, for it’s quite an effort to keep up twelve languages (at least for me), nonetheless almost each day I still use five or six languages.
Knowing several languages makes you mentally and physically stronger and more open to the world compared with monolinguals. This is what the Moldavian-American psycholinguist Viorica Marian argues in her book The Power of Language. Multilingualism, Self and Society. The effect is even stronger, if you are fluent in the languages you have learned, especially when you have learned them already at an early age. The effect is also stronger the more languages you know. In order to understand how it works, you must know that languages are stored in the brain via networks. Such a brain network is like a street net that connects all sites that are relevant from a certain point of view and that need to be connected. Suppose you are a postman. Then you have the street net that connects the post office, where you collect the mail to be delivered plus the district with addresses where you deliver the mail. However, for buying your daily necessities, you have another street net. It contains the streets and shops (supermarket, bakery, greengrocer, etc.) where you buy what you need. If you work in a different district than where you work, these street nets will be different, but if you live in the district where you deliver the mail, the street nets overlap. Then, while delivering the mail, you can stop at the baker’s shop and buy the bread you need; etc. It works in the same way for languages. For each language there is a network in your brain; moreover, the networks for the separate languages always overlap. Of course, these networks are not completely equal; there are “streets” in one language network that do not belong to the network of another language. However, that the networks overlap has important consequences, for when one language network is used (for example, you are speaking English) and you are bilingual (for example you know Spanish as well), your other language (Spanish) network is activated at the same time. This becomes clear in association tests. Say you see a candle, candy, a lock, a fish and a match, and you are a monolingual English speaker. When you are asked to point at the candle, then “candy” is activated as well, because the words “candle” and “candy” are similar (this can be concluded from the eye movements you make). However, if you are also fluent in Spanish, the lock will also be activated, for “lock” in Spanish is “candado” (“fish” and “match” in Spanish are “pez” and “fósforo”). This simple test illustrates that for bilinguals the (possible) range of attention is wider than for monolinguals. This will be the more so, the more languages you know, for multilingualism helps you to be open for more alternatives, for instance when you must solve a problem.
Multilingualism delays also the occurrence of Alzheimer’s disease. It doesn’t stop the development of the disease, but it makes that the effects appear later. Also this is a result of developing a brain network for each language you learn, and it works about in the same manner as the widening of your attention span just described. If you have Alzheimer’s, your brain is gradually demolished, so also your language networks are. For monolinguals, as soon as the language network becomes damaged, the symptoms of the disease appear. If you are bilingual or multilingual, your language networks will be gradually destroyed as well, but although your language networks partially overlap, often it will possible to create diversions via another network, if one becomes defective. It is not that multilinguals cannot develop dementia, but the symptoms will be less severe for them than for monolinguals with the same level of anatomical decay. It is known that multilingualism will delay Alzheimer’s (and other types of dementia) with four to six years on average. Even more, in countries in which the mean number of languages spoken is low the incidence of Alzheimer’s is higher than in countries where it is high. The more languages spoken the lower the incidence of Alzheimer’s disease.
Just short yet a third example of the influence of language on personality: the influence of language on your emotions. It has been shown (and probably you have experienced it yourself if you are multilingual) that your emotions are stronger when expressed in your mother tongue rather than in another language you know. For instance, if you are a native English speaker and someone uses the s-word, the emotional effect on you is much stronger than when you hear a Dutchman saying the Dutch equivalent (which happens to begin also with a s). Generally it is so, that your view on the world and your feelings depend a bit on the language you use, if you are multilingual. As Marian says: “We become somewhat different versions of ourselves when we use one language versus another.” (p. 123). Every language you know extra has a positive impact on you. It widens your world and it improves your health. So, learn a language, and it will change you: For the better.

Random quote
The costs of losing are rarely mentioned by politicians promoting war, who tend to talk as if one is going to win.

Henry Shue (1940-)

Philosophical humour

Humour bij DALL.E when I asked it to make a picture
of putting Descartes before the horse

In these times that the world seems to explode, since two major wars and many small ones are going on, I should have a lot to comment on, to explain and to criticize. Nevertheless, maybe it is better, just now, to pay attention to the funny side of philosophy and to present again some instances of philosophical humour. In the end, philosophy is not only a serious affair! Philosophers are not inherently serious people. They are as human as humans are and they, too, make jokes: philosophical jokes; jokes in which they ridicule philosophical theories. It’s a way to criticize their opponents and themselves but also to make fun. Actually, philosophical jokes are minor philosophical theories in a fun package. Didn’t Wittgenstein say “A serious and good philosophical work could be written consisting entirely of jokes.”? But oops, I forget now what I wanted to do this time: giving you cases of philosophical humour instead of a philosophical theory of philosophy jokes; not more than that. So let me start. Enjoy it (and, it’s true, I can’t help to write some philosophical comments on the jokes here and there).

My most popular blog is one that I wrote already fifteen years ago. It criticizes Descartes’ idea “I think so I am” (see here). So let me start with a joke about Descartes and this idea. It exists in many versions. Here you find some, like this one:
* Descartes walks into a bar. He orders a beer, drinks it, the bartender asks if he would like another, he says “I think not” and disappears.
I assume that I don’t need to explain this joke to you. Nonetheless, I feel a need to comment on it, even if then it might not be funny any longer. To my mind, there are at least two flaws in this joke:
- Descartes’ idea “I think so I am” does not imply “I think not, so I am not”. From the implication if A then B, you cannot conclude that if not-A then not-B. So, the joke is based on a fallacy.
- In my blog on “I act, so I am” I rejected Descartes’ idea and defend the view that it should be “I act so I am”. So, if Descartes says “I think not”, nothing will happen, for his existence doesn’t depend on his thinking. A joke about Descartes should be then something like this:
* Far after midnight, a police officer sees a man sitting on a bench in a park. It’s Descartes, which he doesn’t know. The officer asks: “Sir, what are you doing here?”. “I am thinking, I do nothing”, Descartes replies. He had hardly finished his last word and, poof, he disappears.
But I am afraid that now the joke is not funny any longer. So, let me give some philosophical jokes and humour without comments:

* Wittgenstein is sitting with another philosopher in the garden; the latter says again and again “I know that that’s a tree,” pointing to a tree that is near them. Someone else arrives and hears this, and Wittgenstein tells him: “This fellow isn't insane. We are only doing philosophy.”
* Jeremy Bentham goes up to the counter at a coffee house, holding a $50 bill. “What’s the cheapest drink you have?” he asks. “That would be our decaf roast, for only $1.99,” says the barista. “Good,” says Bentham and hands her the $50. “I’ll buy those for the next twenty-five people who show up.” (source and explication)
* As I sometimes have explained in my blogs and as many philosophers hold true, sense data, like what you see with your eyes, are not reliable. Once you know this, the following joke may be funny:
Morty comes home to see his wife and his best friend, Lou, naked together in bed. Just as Morty is about to open his mouth, Lou jumps out of bed and says, “Before you say anything, old pal, what are you going to believe, me or your eyes?” (source)
* Dean, to the physics department. “Why do I always have to give you guys so much money, for laboratories and expensive equipment and stuff. Why couldn't you be like the math department - all they need is money for pencils, paper and waste-paper baskets. Or even better, like the philosophy department. All they need are pencils and paper.” (source)
* What is a kiss? (source)
- a Sartrean one: a kiss that you worry yourself to death about even though it really doesn't matter anyway.
- a Wittgensteinian one: The important thing about this type of kiss is that it refers only to the symbol (our internal mental representation we associate with the experience of the kiss–which must necessarily also be differentiated from the act itself for obvious reasons and which need not be by any means the same or even similar for the different people experiencing the act) rather than the act itself and, as such, one must be careful not to make unwarranted generalizations about the act itself or the experience thereof based merely on our manipulation of the symbology therefor.
- a Zenoian one: your lips approach, closer and closer, but never actually touch.
To end this blog, again one on Descartes:
* A horse walks into a bar. The bartender asks the horse if it’s an alcoholic considering all the bars he frequents, to which the horse replies “I don’t think I am. I think not!” Poof! The horse disappears. On hearing this, the philosophy students in the audience begin to giggle, as they are familiar with the philosophical proposition “I think, therefore, I am”. But to explain the concept aforehand would be putting Descartes before the horse. (source) 

Random quote
Man is certainly stark mad; he cannot make a flea, and yet he will be making gods by dozens.

Michel de Montaigne (1533-1592)

Pericles on democracy and war

When I read some parts of Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War, I was surprised to see how topical this book still is, 2400 years after it has been written. The facts in the book are a history of the time that the historian Thucydides (c. 460 – c. 400 BC) lived. Nevertheless, if one abstracts from the concrete facts, and take the parties in the war as abstract agents, then it is as if not much has changed. The Peloponnesian War was a war between the Greek city states of Athens and Sparta. Although this war lasted from 431-404 BC, in fact both towns were for a big part of the 5th century BC each other’s competitors if not enemies. Politically and economically both states were very different. Athens was a democracy and a sea power, while Sparta was an authoritarian state and a land power. Both had built their empires by making alliances with other Greek states or by outright subjecting them by force and forcing them to return to their alliances if they wanted to quit. Already this is, I think, enough to make pop up in your mind the conflict between the USA and the Western countries on the one hand and the Soviet Union and now Russia and their allies on the other hand. Once I saw this, it was not difficult for me to apply what happened in Greece 2400-2500 years ago to the present Ukrainian War, in which Ukraine fights a proxy war for the western countries against Russia, after having been invaded by this country without having given any reason for that. This conflict of a democracy state v. an authoritarian state and a sea power v. a land power is especially apparent in the so-called “Funeral Oration” of the Athenian general Pericles (c. 495-429 BC) on occasion of the funeral of a number of fallen Athenian soldiers. Actually, you should read the whole speech.
Usually in my blogs, I comment on texts and I explain their relevance to the present situation, but in this case, I think it is better to quote a long passage of Pericles’ speech, which contains, to my mind, the essence of what he wants to say, and which would lose persuasion, when I would summarize it. It’s up to you to apply the text to the Ukrainian war or any other war since 1945, or maybe also before that date.
Before you are going to read this fragment, a few warnings. The text (which I have copied from the Gutenberg project website) does not give the words originally spoken by Pericles but the words as Thucydides thinks (with good reason) that Pericles has spoken them. Moreover, there is much ideology in the words of Pericles; just as there is much ideology in the way western leaders defend western democracy (and as there is much ideology in the words of their adversaries). The speech is meant to motivate the Athenians to participate in the war against Sparta and to praise the deeds of the soldiers fallen. In democratic Athens, women had no say in politics; only men had. Moreover, Athens was a slave society, as all Greek states in those days. Democracy in Athens existed only for the free male Athenians. Moreover, the speech represents only the Athenian point of view. It would be worthwhile to have the Spartan point of view as well (I have no idea whether Spartan writings that explain that view still exist). It’s the same as presenting the western point of view and ignoring how people in Russia think about the situation at the same time. Here then is the fragment I have chosen:

***

Excerpt from Pericles’ “Funeral Oration”
Our constitution does not copy the laws of neighbouring states; we are rather a pattern to others than imitators ourselves. Its administration favours the many instead of the few; this is why it is called a democracy. If we look to the laws, they afford equal justice to all in their private differences; if no social standing, advancement in public life falls to reputation for capacity, class considerations not being allowed to interfere with merit; nor again does poverty bar the way, if a man is able to serve the state, he is not hindered by the obscurity of his condition. The freedom which we enjoy in our government extends also to our ordinary life. There, far from exercising a jealous surveillance over each other, we do not feel called upon to be angry with our neighbour for doing what he likes, or even to indulge in those injurious looks which cannot fail to be offensive, although they inflict no positive penalty. But all this ease in our private relations does not make us lawless as citizens. Against this fear is our chief safeguard, teaching us to obey the magistrates and the laws, particularly such as regard the protection of the injured, whether they are actually on the statute book, or belong to that code which, although unwritten, yet cannot be broken without acknowledged disgrace.
Further, we provide plenty of means for the mind to refresh itself from business. We celebrate games and sacrifices all the year round, and the elegance of our private establishments forms a daily source of pleasure and helps to banish the spleen; while the magnitude of our city draws the produce of the world into our harbour, so that to the Athenian the fruits of other countries are as familiar a luxury as those of his own.
If we turn to our military policy, there also we differ from our antagonists. We throw open our city to the world, and never by alien acts exclude foreigners from any opportunity of learning or observing, although the eyes of an enemy may occasionally profit by our liberality; trusting less in system and policy than to the native spirit of our citizens; while in education, where our rivals from their very cradles by a painful discipline seek after manliness, at Athens we live exactly as we please, and yet are just as ready to encounter every legitimate danger. … Our united force was never yet encountered by any enemy, because we have at once to attend to our marine and to dispatch our citizens by land upon a hundred different services; so that, wherever they engage with some such fraction of our strength, a success against a detachment is magnified into a victory over the nation, and a defeat into a reverse suffered at the hands of our entire people. And yet if with habits not of labour but of ease, and courage not of art but of nature, we are still willing to encounter danger, we have the double advantage of escaping the experience of hardships in anticipation and of facing them in the hour of need as fearlessly as those who are never free from them.
Nor are these the only points in which our city is worthy of admiration. We cultivate refinement without extravagance and knowledge without effeminacy; wealth we employ more for use than for show, and place the real disgrace of poverty not in owning to the fact but in declining the struggle against it. Our public men have, besides politics, their private affairs to attend to, and our ordinary citizens, though occupied with the pursuits of industry, are still fair judges of public matters; for, unlike any other nation, regarding him who takes no part in these duties not as unambitious but as useless, we Athenians are able to judge at all events if we cannot originate, and, instead of looking on discussion as a stumbling-block in the way of action, we think it an indispensable preliminary to any wise action at all. Again, in our enterprises we present the singular spectacle of daring and deliberation, each carried to its highest point, and both united in the same persons; although usually decision is the fruit of ignorance, hesitation of reflection. But the palm of courage will surely be adjudged most justly to those, who best know the difference between hardship and pleasure and yet are never tempted to shrink from danger. In generosity we are equally singular, acquiring our friends by conferring, not by receiving, favours. Yet, of course, the doer of the favour is the firmer friend of the two, in order by continued kindness to keep the recipient in his debt; while the debtor feels less keenly from the very consciousness that the return he makes will be a payment, not a free gift. And it is only the Athenians, who, fearless of consequences, confer their benefits not from calculations of expediency, but in the confidence of liberality.

***

Source
Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/7142/pg7142-images.html
Recommended
Johanna Anink (ed., translation), How to think about war. Thucydides. An ancient guide to foreign policy. Speeches from The History of the Peloponnesian War. Princeton/Oxford: Prince University Press, 2019.

Random quote
People are often more passionate when they are first convinced to go to war than when they actually wage it.

Pericles (c. 495 - 429 BC)

Can AI systems have emotions?

Image generated by DALL.E

In a recent blog, I raised the question whether AI systems can have consciousness. Now I found on the Psychology Today website several articles by Marlynn Wei that shed an interesting light on the question. In these articles Marlynn Wei discusses recent AI research with psychological relevance.
In my blog I stated that having consciousness is not only a matter of showing consciousness-related behaviour, but that it involves also having consciousness-related subjective experiences. So, a conscious AI system should not only behave as if it is conscious, but it should also have the right feelings, like having the right emotions in the right situation. Having emotions is a complicated affair, but having the right emotions in the right situation at least involves being able to recognize the emotions of other humans, being able to have the right emotions in reaction to the emotions others have, and reacting in the right way to emotions others have. These three aspects of having emotions are not independent of each other, as the discovery of the so-called mirror neurons has made clear. If one of these three aspects of having emotions is missing, then we can say that an AI system doesn’t have consciousness in my sense.
Although such conscious AI systems are still far away and don’t (yet?) exist, some research discussed by Dr Wei is very interesting in this respect. For although, for example, ChatGPT has gained widespread attention for its ability to perform natural language processing tasks, its skills go much farther than “only” producing texts. This chatbot is also able to recognize and describe emotions. Moreover, it does it better than humans do. At least this was the outcome of a recent study by Zohar Elyoseph and others. Using a test called the Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale, the researchers found that ChatGPT scored higher on this test than humans did. (from Wei) Of course, so Wei, “this does not necessarily translate into ChatGPT being emotionally intelligent or empathetic” (a capability that wasn’t tested), nor does it show that it has a “conversational capability in sensing and interacting with the emotions of others.”
Nonetheless, steps into the direction of a conversational capability have already been taken, as another research shows. One of the problems when being in contact with other persons on the internet often is that we don’t see them. It’s a problem because seeing others makes it possible to read their emotions from their faces. Just the absence of face-to-face contacts makes that some people are ruder when dealing with internet partners than when they would have been in real-life contact with those persons. As such, contact via a screen is not the same as a real personal contact. Now the study just mentioned developed “an AI-in-the-loop agent” (called Hailey) “that provides just-in-time feedback to help participants who provide support (peer supporters) respond more empathically to those seeking help (support seekers).” Using Hailey led to a substantial increase in feeling empathy by the peer supporters and expressing this empathy in their contacts with support seekers. So, Hailey did not only help peer supporters to recognize emotions in support seekers but also helped them responding in the right way by advising how to respond. “Overall,” so Dr. Wei, “this study represents promising and innovative research that demonstrates how a human-AI collaboration can allow people to feel more confident about providing support.” But for this we need AI systems that can recognize emotions and then respond in the right way.
All this can be seen as first steps toward a world with conscious AI systems that can be characterized as virtual humans that apparently behave like real humans. Another study, discussed by Marilynn Wei, shows that such AI systems are no longer fiction but on the way to become fact. In such a world, empathy and social connection are within reach of AI systems. Once AI systems behave like humans, humans tend to see them as humans (see the article by Marilynn Wei just mentioned). It’s a bit like the famous theorem by W.I. Thomas: If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences. Virtuality and reality intermingle, and the difference between men and machines tends to disappear. Nevertheless, behaving like humans is not the same as being human, for Chalmer’s hard problem still stands: Even if an AI system shows behaviour that is characteristic of having consciousness, we still don’t know whether it really has consciousness. It is still possible that the AI system is a zombie in the philosophical sense, because it shows consciousness-related behaviour but doesn’t have the consciousness-related subjective experience. Who cares?