If all of this is true. Why are they illegal? It seems like a no brainer to take these.

This is extremely significant. What is the exact function of spines?

It definitely matters for marketing campaigns!

I'd be interested in doing an automated scraping of twitter for the same ideas, and recording sentiment based on key words. This would take away the anonymity problem.

all of these have p values of less than 0.01, so they are all significant.

Most people don't know how severe these health consequences become, so I wanted to point out an example. Cyclists were using EPO back before there was all the rigorous testing procedures. EPO stimulates the production of new red blood cells so that your body can carry more oxygen to your muscles so you can go faster. However; in order to be competitive at the time, they had to take so much epo that their blood would be so clogged up with red blood cells that their heart rate could be in the single digits, and when the cyclists would sleep, they would need to wear heart rate monitors that were connected to alarm clocks so that if their heart rate got too low, they would wake up and quickly jump on a stationary bike to get their blood flowing again. There were many cyclists who died as a result during this time.

Once someone realizes drugs can enhance life by altering your state in one context, it seems it quickly generalizes to all the other contexts.

An experimental design in this case would be crazy. You would need a random sample of kids with no medical need for Ritalin, to have Ritalin be made available to them if they desire to use it as a coping mechanism, compared to a control witch fake Ritalin pills.

Is this an appropriate use? It could seem like a diagnosable brain disorder having a brain in a different time zone.

This is way more prevalent than I had anticipated.

This seems to be a poor example of the inequity, seeing as if we redistributed, there would be 21 extra dollars for each of those 46 million people. With our medical system, that would buy you close to nothing, perhaps a single dose of insulin. The inequalities are way way worse than that.

are there other chemically similar alternatives that other countries are using instead?

This seems very common, where people argue against something but don't support anything either. Creates a lot of useless conflict.

If rich people are pouring money into designer drugs, then it will likely lead to finding medications that work for other diseases, and may end up benefiting poor people as a result.

Something doesn't have to be broken to make it better. Wouldn't we want some people in the country who have important roles to be their best selves even if that means having medications?

Racing shorts are quite revealing, so this would be a sight to behold...

I had no idea there was a drug for this!

I don't like the idea of law enforcement not being honest with the public about what they are doing.

When we are given a drug and don't feel anything at all, our trust in the authority giving the drug brings that up to a 3, which is incredible.

I think its very important that the drug was delivered after the movie, because it is no longer about how they are experiencing the event trying to remember it better because they believe they are being enhanced, now its only about how the recall differs.

I know this from life experience and I'm sure many others have found the same. But it is very interesting to see how true these ideas are?

This is very important, and it seems like it is the case in many medical practices, and in society in general.

It is normal to feel bad when everything is going wrong, it isn't depression to fell depressed after depressing events. When everything is normal or even good and people feel bad, but often patients come in when both are true so it is really hard to distinguish, and since many mental illnesses are based upon how one is feeling, if someone is feeling bad shouldn't we cure them no matter the cost? I guess the other argument is to look at the good feeling bad somedays can have for yourself and others, and to find the optimal amount of that, and cure the rest no matter whether its due to mental illness or life events. Sorry for the ramble.

So then this judge sees the purpose of the legal system as a punitive system.

thats a fast change, only over the course of 2 years. Did the court composition change?

How was the age 18 chosen, it wasn't chose by psychological and neurobiological maturity? Why would we use this age to proxy for that?

The judicious reserve only needs to be an acute awareness of the current limitations of such methods, and not reading into them more than is appropriate. Once these become very accurate, they will save many lives.

This is why animal models are so useful, because the only measurable thing is their behavior

Perhaps the intentionality changed the methelaytion states of some of the dna.

Are there really people who cannot premeditate (premeditation can be formed in an instant) but still commit heinous crimes?

This largely depends on the strength of the attourney.

We should do anonymous incentivized studies on prisoners to try and understand this better.

I'm still skeptical of using the word innocent. Even if someone is mentally ill when they commit a crime, perhaps they don't deserve a punishment, but they still did the crime and we need to act accordingly to protect others. Not responsible and innocent are very different terms to me.

I would love to do this experiment

I guess the question is what is the purpose of the criminal justice system. If we are more concerned about recidivism, the insanity question shouldn't matter and the person should be incarcerated in some capacity. If its for punishment, then I guess it really does matter. There are 4 main intents of criminal justice: incapacitation, rehabilitation, deterrence, and punishment. These aren't the technical terms but my point is that we need to focus on our goals to figure out how to respond. With some goals, being guilty of your own actions doesn't even matter.

When they fire together, of course they are going to wire together, they might become part of the same engram. This would mean that the mouse is going to remember being in both places at the same time whenever it is in either place, which is quite strange. However, we don't know, and I would hypothesize that the mouse doesn't remember being in the place that it wasn't, it is just subliminally scared and subliminally has the amygdala activated from that spot. It would be like if we freeze suddenly but have no idea why. This is just an thought.

Yes this is exactly what I was commenting on earlier.

This will probably mean that in accordance with the Rescorla Wagner model of conditioning, the mice will respond 1/2 as strong to either the artificially activated context and the fear conditioning context in the future, because the bad experience only happened when both were activated, so one might only elicit half the response.

I believe that this works, but I don't believe that this is a false memory. This is just a false association. Kerry Resslers transgenerational fear conditioning experiments finding that fear conditioning in the M71 receptor caused epigenetic changes and mediated fear responses in progeny without any learning trials. This falls in a similar catagory, just as ressler fond that the progeny had a significantly stronger freeze response than the control mice, these mice are freezing because of this false association caused without training. If we can call something that our great grandparents experienced which causes a change in ourselves a memory, which I don't think we can, then we can call this a false memory, but I wouldn't call my great grandparents learning my memories, even though it effects my current gene expression and my responses to stimuli. I do agree that this is false, I just don't necessary agree its a memory, we need to define exactly what this is in light of new contexts.

This document had many many missing pages unfortunately.

This implies that you might be doing wrong to society by not being in a situation that might give you PTSD, this seems very flawed.

This is one of many pages missing on my document; quite confusing. They are all blank.

This number is skewed downwards because those who serve for 20 years get a pension for the rest of their lives which is equal to 1/2 their finishing salary, but they cannot continue to serve with a formal diagnoses, even if it would help, and so for financial reasons they must hide it if it is not all consuming.

This is a particularly important theme throughout the course. It seems no amendment will ever pass through congress again, but its important to think about.

We allow adhd stimulants to be fair game for any one who needs them. How is this any difference. Its a condition that gets in the way of life, and a medication to fix it. Yes it may be unfair to give it to those who don't need it, but where is the damage really? I think ethics papers should really focus on defining what our morals are, not what goes against our unspecified morals.

By the time our medication can erase memories, we will be so extremely proficient at solving crimes, this may not be a problem, eye witness evidence is sketchy anyway.

Sometimes paired with an increased probability of success in the mission, and may be worth it.

yes this is true, but I don't know how I feel about suffering a traumatic memory for the sake that it might help others. How would you develop a system to choose what pain to invoke on each person for society?

What would this look like on the cellular level. This is hard for me to picture.

My thought here is to ask whether having this memory is adaptive, and may help prevent future episodes or not.

I would amend this to say testing should not be conducted at any point if there is such evidence. Delaying it could still be stressful because it is looming over them. If such factors go away, then its not a problem anymore, but delay makes it seem that we must test eventually no matter what.

This would clearly vary greatly and could only go on a case by case basis.

Knowing predispositions to certain illnesses effectively ruins the model of insurance, since the companies will not choose to loose money on people who will cost alot, but people not predisposed are less likely to buy insurance. It only works when there is a lack of information. This is why I am concerned about taking DNA tests because if there is a predisposition that the insurance companies find out about, i'll be in trouble.

Invalid predictive tests can be extremely dangerous.

I certainly would want to know if I were going to become disabled in a few years, or even 20 years out. If it were a guarantee, than it wouldn't loom over me like the uncertainty of fading away. I would be able to plan my life around this inevitability. I'd be able to plan financially and do everything on my bucket list before those days roll around. People may not want to know, and just face it if it comes, but there is also the category of people who really wouldn't want to know, but if they know the information is available, than the will be compelled to find out, even if the answer is detrimental. That might be an ethical issue if any?

I'd go a step further than that to say without the original knowledge that chocolate lovers find chocolate rewarding, we wouldn't be able to make the connection that that is the rewarding part of the brain. Our experiences are guiding these new inferences .

This is all about the signal to noise ratio.

Clearly the contrary, saying there is some noticeable but barely conclusive link between X and Y, would not capture people's attention.

This seems to be alot of the neuroscience in the press. The point of news is to make money, not to actually provide information, so this skews what information they provide.

These are all absurd.

How specifically do these brain regions really match to these emotions and sentiments?

At what point do these statistics become stereotypes that are disruptive? This seems fine to be but its something to consider.

We looked at this during one of the first class periods.

We should discuss the ethical issues in class about testing on animals.

There have been some successful studies in mice using optogenetics to force the mouse to turn left, to become ravenous, or to become aggressive. These are effectively mind control because whenever we shine the light, they are forced to do whatever that those neurons do when activate.

Its amazing that I've never considered these things as real, just something that takes place in futuristic movies. It's amazing that we're actually at the point where we can even plausibly consider them.

There will always be nonsense that we have to sort through. Not making regulations makes us keen towards this so that we don't fall for the ones that slip through the cracks.

I wonder why we are suddenly so concerned with privacy. Our privacy has been invaded to extreme levels ever since the internet, and there hasn't been lash back on that. Why hasn't there been? Were these same discussions happening 20 years ago about the new phone and internet technology that were having now about neurological devices. If we are concerned about the privacy for these future devices, we should also be fighting the current battle.

The terms and conditions for all social media platforms will start to include us relinquishing our neural data for marketing purposes. Thats even worse than our phones listening to every word we say and tracking everywhere we go for marketing purposes.

If you read the warning labels on alot of these products they are scary; they are completely experimental. There are some where the creator comes out and says this is dangerous, I wouldn't use it, but feel free if you're willing to risk it.

I have another such device. Its a pair of headphones that transcranially stimulates the motor cortex to put it in a state of hyperplasticity so that neuromuscular connections can be formed more easily during athletic training.

If we can justify using statistics and supporting utilitarianism, we could then support egregious things such as slavery. We need to first protect our baseline individual rights before thinking about society as a whole. King Jr did his work 60 years ago, but obviously it was not accepted to the level it should have been.

It really reflects the harshness of the world that this is not the widely accepted standard. This means everyone else is willing to sacrifice individual's welfare and potential for the slightest increase in efficiency. It's sad that this statement is posted as a novel idea.

And especially not who we look like!

I absolutely agree, and in order to support these claims, we need to specifically define the goals of the criminal justice system.

The conclusion opens up an even bigger debate.

All of these new methods, are pushing me in the other direction. All punishments should be behaviorally based because the alternative is becoming too invasive, immoral and inconsistent. I do still support going to mental institutions rather than prisons for these offenders.

I believe this is misleading. Difficult here means that accuracy is very hard to achieve and our current level is unacceptable, not that it takes extreme effort to get a good result, like it is suggesting, despite it being presently very possible.

Again seems like we are going to justify a wrong with another, already accepted wrong.

This is the most important point here. It grounds the paper back to the limitations of the research.

This is nowhere near enough to make an individual judgment on another person with this charcteristic

Yes this was exactly my point above.

At this point, the US is very against stereotyping. Using other's behavior in similar situations to make a determination of your future incarceration seems to defy that to the highest extent.

This is very utilitarian, but the US does not take that approach in all other things, so why should that be a given here?

Look at the current size of our machinery that only barely reads thought. That is a pretty far off into the future!

These are not simply thoughts at this point, as the abstract made it sound.

Were any of these acted upon?

I still see these techniques as too unreliable for court. Court decisions must be made with undeniable evidence to preserve our freedoms.

None of these operationalizations have any chance to practice before hand in such as in court, (to really convince yourself of the lie, and become confident) or any stakes.

Another question is how can we simulate the stakes of lying in court with the stakes of a life in prison. There is no such experimental setting. And no criminal is just going to come clean afterwards for the benefit of science.

If people can look at the results in an unbiased fashion, and use the statistics to say what they truly mean, I agree, this can be a useful tool.

This demonstrates how interconnected the brain is and how each part is responsible for so many different functions. It also seems like a bad idea to publish the ways around the tests if we are ever going to adopt them.

Of course there was! Thats why this can't be used in court!

We are not at a place yet where lie detection should be used in criminal court. The power of a lie detection test is not up to the beyond all reasonable doubt standard, and will sway the jury more than it should given that juries don't tend to be statistically inclined.

I really need more data and figures for this kind of article to have more significance to me and to shape my view. But, this is a news paper article so of course it doesn't have them.

This is all about how we use it though. Its rare that we mix up antiterror with an average court case!

I haven't read any of Orwell, so here's a definition for others: destructive to the welfare of a free and open society

It seems the more advanced any technology gets, the more ethical complications come into play.

Oh how easy neuroscience would be if everything was one to one.

Machine learning seems to be the key to all systematically complex problems that could be soled with millions of observations that we can't yet make. All we have are broader observations and algorithms.

What is reverse inference? If an inference is making a deduction based on the information we know, would this be based on something we think, trying to find out concrete information. I'm struggling with this concept. Examples would help.