Let there be Science

psydoctor8:

Guilty, but not responsible?

Any scientific developments that threatened our notion of free will would seem to put the ethics of punishing people for their bad behaviour in question. In Free Will Harris debates these ideas and asks whether or not, given what brain science is telling us, criminal justice, in focusing on retribution, rests on an entirely false basis. An example he gives is a murderer who kills because of a brain tumour. This person is a victim, not a criminal. The tumour is the cause of his crimes. People imagine that the normal brain is a different story. But in fact the study of any criminal brain, says Harris, is the equivalent of finding a tumour in it – the wrong genes being transcribed, the brain being dictated by events over which he has no control. Human choice, says Harris,
“…is as important as fanciers of free will believe. But the next choice you make will come out of the darkness of prior causes that you, the conscious witness of your experience, did not bring into being.”
Clearly we need to lock up dangerous people. But there is no sense to the idea that they somehow deserve it. Retributive justice is like requiring us to hate, as well as shoot, a wild animal who escapes from the zoo.” 

When we say lock up, are we still talking about punishment?  Inside the forensic hospitals I have visited, there is a brick-solid tension between staff and inmates/patients as to how to treat them. A common dilemma the staff struggles with is should they been treat the prisoners as medical patients and deliver care since they are generally not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) or should they be treated like as captured monsters, since dangerous behavior IS what landed them there? Staff safety is a major concern obviously.  Taking a tip from Norway, a novel change would be a path toward first treating them like humans- since no matter what they did/how heinous it was - that’s all they are.

psydoctor8:

Guilty, but not responsible?

Any scientific developments that threatened our notion of free will would seem to put the ethics of punishing people for their bad behaviour in question. In Free Will Harris debates these ideas and asks whether or not, given what brain science is telling us, criminal justice, in focusing on retribution, rests on an entirely false basis. An example he gives is a murderer who kills because of a brain tumour. This person is a victim, not a criminal. The tumour is the cause of his crimes. People imagine that the normal brain is a different story. But in fact the study of any criminal brain, says Harris, is the equivalent of finding a tumour in it – the wrong genes being transcribed, the brain being dictated by events over which he has no control. Human choice, says Harris,

“…is as important as fanciers of free will believe. But the next choice you make will come out of the darkness of prior causes that you, the conscious witness of your experience, did not bring into being.”

Clearly we need to lock up dangerous people. But there is no sense to the idea that they somehow deserve it. Retributive justice is like requiring us to hate, as well as shoot, a wild animal who escapes from the zoo.” 

When we say lock up, are we still talking about punishment?  Inside the forensic hospitals I have visited, there is a brick-solid tension between staff and inmates/patients as to how to treat them. A common dilemma the staff struggles with is should they been treat the prisoners as medical patients and deliver care since they are generally not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) or should they be treated like as captured monsters, since dangerous behavior IS what landed them there? Staff safety is a major concern obviously.  Taking a tip from Norway, a novel change would be a path toward first treating them like humans- since no matter what they did/how heinous it was - that’s all they are.

How Different Kinds of Booze Get You Drunk in Different Ways

mentalflossr:

Bar image via Shutterstock

From Slate: The Varieties of Drunken Experience

I would like to add that your intentions and / or expectations while drinking also play a role in behavior.  In fact make this a do it yourself experiment, get non-alcoholic beer remove the labels and commence drinking with a friend.  Document their reaction.

moneyisnotimportant:

Read more
It’s not what you know, it’s who you know and how much they like you.

And thus leading us to today’s lesson; it does matter what other people think of you.

moneyisnotimportant:

Read more

It’s not what you know, it’s who you know and how much they like you.

And thus leading us to today’s lesson; it does matter what other people think of you.

Motorcycle Drive By (unedited)

Motorcycle Drive By - Third Eye Blind

It’s been awhile since I’ve listened to this gem, thought you might enjoy it as well.

[Flash 9 is required to listen to audio.]
cheerskelsey:

You don’t learn how to smoke a pipe in one sitting.  It takes practice.  Good thing I’m willing to make the sacrifice.  Patio, here I come. 

Brilliant, think I’ll go light up as well.

cheerskelsey:

You don’t learn how to smoke a pipe in one sitting.  It takes practice.  Good thing I’m willing to make the sacrifice.  Patio, here I come. 

Brilliant, think I’ll go light up as well.

(via pipelovinladies)

underwere:

I’m so fucking glad someone had the balls to do this.

I would like to see the reactions of people driving by these for the first time.

(Source: mc-xc, via zarlana)

polarity-shift:

Reblog forever and ever and ever and ever and ever

Those words. Simple, sweet, and to the point.

polarity-shift:

Reblog forever and ever and ever and ever and ever

Those words. Simple, sweet, and to the point.

Once again expressing an idea/feel/emotion through someone else’s song lyrics

Max Bemis - Song: Red Cat (Slash) Yellow Cat - - - I just want to see someone I respect without their clothes

Creatively remixing all your old favorites, live, at the time…

pepperonideluxe:

explodingaces:

notfixedbutfound:

davebaker610:

zachlantz:

fridaywiththejeffersons:

I just laughed my ass off at these.

Holy shit.  hahahahhaha

Dying

fuck

Jesus…

Jesus

you dick

(Source: dragonborntobewild, via lazysmirk)

psydoctor8:

“Can we have free will, if the brain’s actions are automatic? A scholar makes the case” 

Warned at the outset that the topic ignited controversy, the evening’s Q&A featured an outraged tirade by a speaker so apoplectic over Gazzaniga’s claims of the deterministic brain, that he could barely make himself understood. This was balanced by the question of a more modest audience member worried only about his ‘senior moments.’ He had attended a talk given by Eric Kandel, Nobel-prize winning neuroscientist, and had also asked Kandel’s counsel, hoping there would be a simple solution such as eating “brain food.” “What do you advise?” he asked Gazzaniga. “Blueberries and martinis,” Gazzaniga answered. “What did Kandel say?” asked Gazzaniga. The man replied, “wine every night and forget about it!”

Agita, quaque die post meridiem. Ex modo prescripto.

psydoctor8:

“Can we have free will, if the brain’s actions are automatic? A scholar makes the case” 

Warned at the outset that the topic ignited controversy, the evening’s Q&A featured an outraged tirade by a speaker so apoplectic over Gazzaniga’s claims of the deterministic brain, that he could barely make himself understood. This was balanced by the question of a more modest audience member worried only about his ‘senior moments.’ He had attended a talk given by Eric Kandel, Nobel-prize winning neuroscientist, and had also asked Kandel’s counsel, hoping there would be a simple solution such as eating “brain food.” “What do you advise?” he asked Gazzaniga. “Blueberries and martinis,” Gazzaniga answered. “What did Kandel say?” asked Gazzaniga. The man replied, “wine every night and forget about it!”

Agita, quaque die post meridiemEx modo prescripto.

realcleverscience:

oldowan:

Darwin ( :

Awesome. Also, if you dig this, check out Baba Brinkman’s “Rap Guide to Evolution.”

(Source: punkslovepoints)