A lot of people have issues with the concept of predetermination. In the U.S. as a culture we grasp for predetermination or free will, depending on which will further our cause. A common synonym for predetermination is God’s will or God’s plan. The very same people will of course argue that we are all responsible for our actions. As a way to run our justice system, to have culture of justice, we act as though and thus apply the law as though people do indeed have free will. People make choices and if those choices hurt others they must be held accountable. That is the ideal if not the actual practice – insert the example of your choice, either on a personal level or the public stage – someone probably came immediately to mind. There might be something to acknowledging predetermination in regards to our justice system. For better or worse we’ll still have to punish mean family and friends with simply parting ways. Our understanding of the way the brain works could help us create a better legal system, says neuroscientist David Eagleman.
The first lesson we learn from studying our own circuitry is shocking: most of what we do and think and feel is not under our conscious control. The vast jungles of neurons operate their own programs. The conscious you – the I that flickers to life when you wake up in the morning – is the smallest bit of what’s transpiring in your brain. Although we are dependent on the functioning of the brain for our inner lives, it runs its own show. Your consciousness is like a tiny stowaway on a transatlantic steamship, taking credit for the journey without acknowledging the massive engineering underfoot.
The author acknowledges this fact based phenomenon is frequently met with disbelief. Acting as though the opposite were true and with some knowledge of biology 101 it is not that difficult to see how true it is. Humans have trillions of individuals cells and the electro-chemical reactions that must occur to keep them all functioning every minute, numbers in the billions. Who wants to claim they can prove they have conscious control over every one of those reactions and over every cell. Part of what makes you is conscious, while the rest is pretty much operating on auto-pilot. How does this apply to crime and punishment. Besides being not much more than torture chambers our prison system is lousy at rehabilitation. Over 50% of males and almost 40% of female convicts wind up back in prison. Most of us can agree that if everyone one of them was a serial murderer or rapist, that is where they probably belong. Much of the U.S. prison population is incarcerated because of drugs(20%) and property crime(about 18%). What if their sentence took into account their neural wiring. No to the point where we say they should not be held accountable, but punishment with an eye towards custom rehabilitation,
Currently, our patterns of punishment are founded on the concepts of personal volition and the attendant culpability. But a shift in our understanding of individual differences suggests a move toward prison sentences tailored to the risk of recidivism rather than the desire for revenge.
Some people will say that bringing science into sentencing removes its humanity. But as it stands now, research shows that ugly people get longer sentences than beautiful people, and psychiatrists and parole boards, when tested, have no predictive power in guessing who will reoffend.
Beyond modulating sentences, a deeper understanding of the brain will allow us to move beyond treating incarceration as a one-size-fits-all solution.
ghost train 2 wallpaper. i couldn’t decide which i liked best so i put them both up.
In a part of the article about neuroscience and predetermination is paragraph that highlights the common belief that humanity like to think it is rational. Few people would admit they are not. The best most of us can hope for is a blend of rationalism and compassion. The rational animal belief is closely connected to the belief that people know what is and act in their best interests. Ayn Rand admitted in Atlas Shrugged that living solely for oneself would not work if individuals could not discern what is actually in their best interests. This is a common problem with the current generation of Lamborghini libertarians or libertarians who imagine themselves in a Lamborghini some day. One of the ways we determine what is in our best interests is to learn from experience. Experience expands our capacity for reasoning and sometimes a little more control over our lives. Monkeys and elephants learn from experience, so we should be able to do so just as well, right? Experience is a bantam weight boxer up against a super heavyweight when it comes to the human capacity for rationalization and self-justification. No other animal matches us for the mental hops we can jump to avoid responsibility for past mistakes or blurring cause and effect. These people –Conservatives Can’t Escape Blame for the Financial Crisis – brought us the worse economic collapse since The Depression and manipulated the country into a bloody and counterproductive three trillion-dollar war. Based on that experience, we’re all supposed to believe the very same people have the best answers to how to reduce the deficit and manage the economy. Allowing for low IQ and mental disorders, if most of us were practical beings who acted in our own best interests, and judging from recent experience, Republicans plans for the economy would be promptly ignored by 90% of the population.
The arch was a significant step in human and architectural history. The above is a horseshoe arch. Like all arches it provides a structure which eliminates or compensates for tensile stresses in spanning an open space.