How the pre-college Columbia Neurolaw course changed my outlook

If a boat with 1,000 planks of wood had one plank replaced every year for 1,000 years, is it the same boat at the end of those 1,000 years? That was the opening question asked by my professor of law at Columbia University in New York this summer.

In my week-long neurolaw course as part of Columbia’s Pre-College Program, I learned about how neurology can affect law, as we discussed philosophy, psychology and technologies in the courtroom.

I applied to this course because I had an interest in law, philosophy and neuroscience and wanted to explore it further.

Ara Sagharian stands in front of Columbia University's Hamilton Hall, where the neurolaw course was held

To gain entrance into this course, I had to go through an application process providing my grades and references among other items on the checklist. Ultimately I was selected as one of 13 people from around the world.

Our professor for the week was Adam Kolber, an esteemed author and law professor who has taught at NYU and Brooklyn Law School, and went to school at Stanford and Princeton.

Our syllabus for the week:

Mon, Aug 11:

Class introductions

Improv Exercise I: Preparing to make a course presentation

Research, brainstorm, and select presentation topic area(s)

Tue, Aug 12:

The Lying Game Exercise

Improv Exercise II: Preparing presentations

Finalize presentation topic for Wednesday approval; prepare background material

Wed, Aug 13:

Presentations: Seek approval; continue progress and ask questions

Continue working on presentation and timing; should be near completion

Thu, Aug 14:

Presentations: Final approval opportunity; continue progress and ask questions

Finalize presentation, confirm timing, and present to at least two friends/family

Fri, Aug 15:

Final presentations

Near the beginning of the course, as we delved into philosophy and psychology, the professor posed some interesting questions to open up the classroom to debate.

I haven’t really discussed philosophy in school prior to this experience, so learning about how different people think was very interesting and eye-opening. Some examples of questions asked were: If someone was walking to work and saw a kid drowning in a pool, are they morally liable to save them? For this, it was mostly agreed upon that he is morally liable, even if he is not legally liable.

Another question posed was the “experience machine” and if you would take it or not. This is a hypothetical concept, created by philosopher Robert Nozick, that would allow one a person to experience absolutely anything their heart would desire. I was the only person who said they'd like to experience this machine, everyone else disagreed, as they believed imaginary experiences are equal to not having them at all. Although I agree to a certain extend, my thinking was that I like to have good dreams, so what would the difference be between a good dream and a good imaginary experience?

An increasingly controversial topic

On the third and fourth days, we explored different technologies relating to neuroscience and law.

For example, the functional MRI uses magnetic waves to detect what someone is thinking about, which is an increasingly controversial topic as it can violate someone’s right to remain silent, as well as their privacy. I found this very interesting and chose this topic to base my presentation on. In the end, I found that this technology isn't very reliable as there is a very high chance of false positives.

MRI results are seen in this file photo by Anna Shvets.

We also explored the relevance of AI in the courtroom, and the general consensus was that while artificial intelligence could not really replace lawyers, it could possibly make judges irrelevant.

Columbia also hosted multiple events and workshops during the 2 hour lunch for the pre-college program students.

One of the ones I attended was held by Tom Leach, someone who worked on Wall Street with Raj Rajaratnam, discussing what exactly happened in the insider trading scandal, which I found quite interesting, as someone from such humble beginnings became so greedy.

I feel that usually people coming from humble beginnings are grateful for their success, and don’t want to screw anything up as they know what struggling is like.

On the final day, we were all tasked with presenting on a topic we’d been working on through the week.

For me, the most intriguing presentations were on false memories as it’s something I’ve never thought about, some people are able to plant false memories into other people which I didn’t know was possible, and also the presentation on AI as it is very prominent today, in many aspects of life such as work, school or social media.

To circle back to the opening question, my argument was that two BMW 2025 X5s are technically the same, but they aren’t the exact same car in essence, in the same way two twins aren’t the same person.

Overall, by the end of this program I learned more about myself and how other people think, and began looking at things more for the greater good, and less from a retributivist point of view.