neuroscience could change that. once we understand and have a better understanding of human behavior and we recognize that there is a much finer graduation that we can draw than this bright line, perhaps it will shift the line or start over. it's not all that consistent, inconsistent with the way to do things. >> i think it is inconsistent, so if you want an open debate, we have to open the debate. >> i would like to jump in at some point. >> go ahead. >> we have the two distributions. we have one distribution based on "free will or volitional control" which applies on the civil side and used to apply under the a.l.i. test and now we have a new distribution of being able to distinguish right from wrong. so now we have two completely different distributions that we're drawing that bright line on. >> competent versus volitional. we can decide that cognitive isn't sufficient, but it is the basis where we draw the line. sorry. >> ok. so to get back to the science, do you see how the research that you're doing and this i

neuroscience and d.n.a. are different that way. interestingly, there is a lot of neuroscience collaborations that are happening with people outside of the neuroscientific field. it is still neuroscientists doing the decision-making. the quality of the science is different. >> definitely. >> as a result, the question of its appropriateness in the courtroom and whether or not we think that it's likely to follow the same fate and path that these so-called other sciences are, i think it's more likely to be like d.n.a. than it is to be like the forensic sciences which aren't really science to begin with. so i think we can take a little bit of comfort in having it in the courtroom, but also recognizing there is peer-reviewed literature that followed the scientific method. we can actually evaluate it in the courtroom. i agree with david, in order to do so, we need to increase the training of lawyers and judges and the general public in these fields so that people are critically able to evaluate the type of science that is introduced in th

for the first time, the supreme court sided adolescents -- cited adolescent neuroscience. a 12-year-old brain develops. you will watch its start to mature until you hit about 24 or 25. for those of you who are parents, you do not need a scan. for those of us who went to adolescence, we know it was a time of poor decision making. the supreme court used the picture of the brain in order to make the decision. there is this nice development over time that is associated with changes in composition and changes in how you process the world and make decisions. ok. now you have another client named george. he is a 55-year-old white male offender. he has a history of being in and out of jail. his iq is very low. george has a very low iq, they might have to refer to him as being retarded. he has arrested for murder and the prosecution is seeking the death penalty. the supreme court said you are not allowed for individuals with low iqs. prosecution says the iq is 72, high enough to execute. is there anything that neuroscience can do about george? i am just kidding, this is george. [la

and there have been, i think, quite a bit of neuroscience focusing on trying to develop better treatments for individuals by understanding the mechanism of those changes. in the courtroom, i believe that to help judges, judges when we do the education, one of my collaborators who does this work teaches them how the brain changes with addiction, et cetera, et cetera. that may be helpful for judges sentencing to drug courts for addiction problem instead of prison for a long period of time. the primary problem is one of addiction and treatment of remediation of that and the subsequent behavioral problems and other things is probably far more cost-effective and good for that person than simply sentencing them to prison time. and so i think the neuroscience helps to educate and change our ways that we understand drugs and drug addiction. >> another question is have you ever been allowed to testify regarding i.q. in a hearing or a trial using your program? >> yes, i just did that this weekend. so i testified this morning. i do know that -- so the atkins case was actually argued by a professor a

and so i think the neuroscience helps to educate and change our ways that we understand drugs and drug addiction. >> another question is have you ever been allowed to testify regarding i.q. in a hearing or a trial using your program? >> yes, i just did that this weekend. so i testified this morning. i do know that -- so the atkins case was actually argued by a professor at the university of new mexico and he is constantly barraged by what's the best way to assess i.q., especially when you have these different tests and different measures, et cetera. i.q. is one of the most well studied things in psychology. so taking a brain scan and fitting your brain along a dimension and getting a value is just a slightly different way of doing it than giving you the tests and stuff like that. so i have not obviously testified to anything like that. i just tried to give that as an example. there is an enormous literature out there that is already peer-reviewed and published on i.q. there are dozens of papers. the big question is how well can i take a single person's brain scan and with what confiden

[applause] >> so what i showed you today was to give you that exact what is neuroscience doing in the legal is system and so that person of the person with the tumor, you could all see that and so can a radiologist. but the else that we do know of those images. no radiologist can just see by looking at them. we are so sensitive to individual differences in i.q., in age, in all of these different availables, psychopathy scores, whatever it is, we can develop beautiful pictures of these things. so the question is, how is the legal system going to deal with all of these different, you know, images and other types of things that we can now tell you about your brain and how is that going to change things? so i tend to view, you know, individuals who have brain differences for whatever reason worthy of developing better treatments for them that can help to remediate those problems. as psychologists, we study abnormal behavior. anita shows distribution, most of us in here. you get anybody out here who is externalizing or anyone out here who is internalizing, as a psychologist, we try to brin

i was being indulgent teacher giving 25 lectures a year on the neuroscience, selling molecular neuroscience using this textbook that i'm fond of, one of the textbooks in the field by the colleagues but i am fond weighing seven and a half pounds which is twice of the human brain. but it's about the brain so that can't be right. the students got the idea by the end of the course that everything was known about nero science and that is certainly not true. the way we kept track of what we knew was we built a lot of facts and stick them in these encyclopedia books and that isn't true to reach we don't really know much about the brain at all. we don't even know what we don't know about the brain in some ways. we are still finding marvelous things out that we never would have thought of. so i thought well i really ought to teach these students something of neuroscience and so why give it a couple of lectures to that at the end of the course and then fought not see if this works so that's what we do and they meet once a week it is a seminar course for two hours in the evening and i invite members o

that is really the big question in cognitive neuroscience. it is not at all sounds are music.e do not put on records of chickens clucking, waterfalls falling, some of us do, but the real music come from this arrangement of organized sound we call music. i have to say, we do not really know. the closest we have got is music appears to be metaphorical for movement and instruments sometimes sound like a mother singing, crying. and the only thing we know for sure is that music is activating a lot of regions in the brain. i think the best explanation that i will propose now, tentatively, as it has to do with expectation and release. when we hear a piece of music, because it has a pulse, we almost always know when the next bibelot be, but we do not know what it will be. the job of the composer is to reward us by playing what we expect, but violating those expectations just often enough of the time to keep us interested. when the composer can violate those expectations in an interesting way and give us a resolution that we would have never predicted, then they have got us for life. t