In the past two weeks I speculated that the hippocampus malfunctions might result from alcohols influence on the neural electrical connections between the joining sperm and ovum.
I also read on the Internet where it said that gay's did not have a choice in being gay. I had to challenge that theory! And what I have come up with in theory is that they might be gay due to the first line above.
(Relevant article from Scientific American,
The hippocampus is responsible for memory and spatial relations- that has a lot to do with sense of direction. Men tend to be better at this than women. And the man's hippocampus is indeed different than that of a woman.
Search my blog for other recent articles on the hippocampus to better piece it all together.
But what I am coming up with is that alcohol is the leading cause of mental retardation in the western world and it is do to its effects on the hippocampus. Fetal alcohol syndrome is irreversible.
That teenagers who drink tend to lose 10% of their hippocampus.
And that the first part of the brain to go in Alzheimers is the hippocampus. And we know that after that happens it it rapidly down hill.
It is our memories that make us human?
If the alcohol can do all that detriment to the brain it is not too far off to say that it can debalance the neuron interfacing of the sperm and ovum and the structures of the brain relating to what parts are of different size and shape and therefore function in men than in women?
What else do we know about alcohol? That testosterone in men peaks about thirty minutes after ingestion. So if it indeed increases testosterone in men upon ingestion it also is likely to have an influence on female hormones during pregnancy.
Okay here is the question I want you to seriously contemplate. Without alcohol would there be any gay people?
I have had many good conversations with gay people in my lifetime. It only takes one person to break any stereotype one has of a group of people. And once one breaks a stereotype one can think about the specifics of things. Do you see what I mean? In analysis we might call that eliminating a non relevant factor? But you don't really entirely eliminate non relevant factors because proper analysis always requires starting from scratch every time, even on the same issue, in order to see where a new train of thought leads one in terms of premises that build accurately from one to the other. As a matter of fact when you get stuck on a problem it is helpful to step back and look at it from a clear beginning again. That is how I think. I know what you want to say, that is the doubting Thomas method. No. It is just a responsible way to think about things when one see's that people have not found solutions and the problems keep compounding. -That means it is starting from a bad first point. Or that somewhere in the basis of understanding there is an untruth.
Now I want to ask the question, "If I can put all these pieces together, why hasn't someone else already put them together?" Then I am at a fork in the road and ask, "If someone has indeed put these pieces together why are they not part of common knowledge used to help find better solutions?"
And you know what I am getting at? So then I ask the question, "If that is true that it was covered up what is the motivation?" And the two answers that I come up with are 1. Liability. 2. Money.
And then I again ask the question, "If scientific knowledge is covered up by businesses that have been granted limited liability. Maybe they should never have been granted limited liability?"
And that train of thought just keeps going; like a hunter. But you have read it all before.
On a lighter note. There is a child in the classroom with the other children. He has the psychological symptoms of not being able to control impulsive acts of violence against other children. That behavior goes unchecked. In adulthood that personality translates into the psychotic personality that will do everything in the name of money. I came up with the term Savage Greed today at lunch when I was trying to describe Chicago. So one of the ways that a person can be committed is if they do not know how their behavior is affecting other people. Should that really be a subjective determination made by a judge that likes to drink wine ever night before bed like her/his father did? What am I getting at? Corporate executives make decisions that have killed people and yet they are not committed. Doesn't it mean that if your actions killed someone that you are dangerous? And if indeed you are dangerous to other people are you not also a danger to yourself? What I am getting at is crime based on the mental defect caused by alcohols degradation to the hippocampus and the formation and proper development of the hippocampus. And again I want you to seriously ask the question, "Without alcohol shouldn't there be less crime?" Now you do the homework and see what your conclusion is and what your motivation for the conclusion is.
Children are going back to school. I can tell you that when they upped the drinking age when I was around that age I was very upset, back in high school! Now today I do not drink at all and won't! So I have to ask the question what shapes the opinions of a young man in high school in our society with regard to alcohol? It is made to be like a macho thing isn't it? Start reading this article from the beginning again.
Copyright 2013 Thomas Paul Murphy
Originally published on 08 25 2013 at: www.themilwaukeeandwisconsinnews.blogspot.com