Homosexuality and Population Control

Agent_USA_Supporter
Do homosexual people realize it was their mothers that gave birth to them?

Are homophobic social rejects who seek solace and displaced appropriation for their bronze-aged social ideologies on online forums aware that a gay man invented the computer?

Astrocyte
*snip*

Homosexuality has more than one etiology. The fact that it often runs in families indicates a strong genetic/epigenetic influence. But this isn't to say that this is the only way one can develop homosexual feelings. The brains higher areas remain plastic throughout life: meaning one could, if they so wanted, develop homosexual or heterosexual attractions at any age.

I think this is the basic core of your primary argument, and I agree completely with claims 1, 2 and 3.

Claim 4 is the complication. I see no conclusive evidence for intentional use of the plasticity of the brain based on what you've said here so far.

I think your secondary claim is here:

The most essential technique in effecting change has been a combination of western psychological self introspection, as well as the eastern practice of mindfulness.

Basically you're proposing that the physical structure of the brain can be significantly altered to the desired outcomes by ... thinking about it? Concentration, meditation, mental "practice" will change brain structure and chemistry "to order."

Is that a fair summary of your position?

reply to post by Gryphon66


It's a basic principle of neurobiology - its called Hebbs law: neurons that fire together wire together.

Since neurons are infinitesimally tiny, and its inner structures can only be analyzed with detail under an electron microscope, it'll probably be difficult to see any structural change with the naked eye unless the change has been dramatic (such as in London Cab drivers and their anterior hippocampus - still, the difference is subtle, although at a neural level it is quite substantial)

But the basic idea is: functionality affects structure. What changes the brain is attention. Wherever attention is placed - whatever emotional/motor/sensory/visual/situational etc aspects of the brain are activated to mediate that awareness - the vast majority of which is unconscious - and if this is maintained over time, the "functioning" of this aforementioned activity induces deep structural changes within and between neurons.

How is this? Right now, the molecular theory of action is still now fully understood, but this is only because neuroscience is still a relatively young science.

For the longest time, people thought "biology is everything" - meaning, if your brain is one way, it's stuck that. We now know that isn't true. In addition to the brain affecting consciousness, consciousness can affect the brain. This happens through the more evolutionary evolved dorsolateral cortex - the side areas at the top of our brains - which allow us to imagine different scenarios and different possibilities of being. By activating these areas - also known as "defocusing" areas - functional change occurs within consciousness - in the orbitomedial, thalamic, hypothalamic and brain stem regions, among other areas.

This basically means that by virtue of this unique human capacity, how we place our attention can INSTIGATE molecular changes within and between neurones. It is still somewhat of a paradox for scientists to understand. In essence, your saying that activity in one area - the dorsolateral cortex - can energize molecular activities within neurons in other areas. Ok: but what is engendering change in the dorsolateral area? The mind. Unless you consider consciousness to be something that is "real" - whether as a emergent or fundamental phenomena, you're gonna find yourself in an illogical circular process where the willed changes in one brain region - the dorsolateral cortex - is treated as "spontaneous" and not Willed by a mind that chooses where to place it's attention.

Astrocyte
reply to post by Bazart

 

Having made decades of amateur sociological observations myself, it doesn't surprise me at all that you are interested ( both ) in trauma, and homosexuality.

Sure, it's an interest I have. But I am not about to go risking my career trajectory by investigating an area this emotionally explosive.

Eventually, I think neuroscience will veer into this area ... The presence of a masculine-femine context, although it might have some subtle effects we still cant quantify (evolutionary psychology might help shed light on this area), research still shows that it's not going to create the type of problems that religious fundamentalists claim.

I ( for one ) want no part of problems that religious fundamentalists claim. I'm not religious . Subtle effects are everything in evolution... at least for the survivors.

It seems that some wish to justify ( for whatever reason ) their lifestyle... but, I worry that your own hope of ' shedding light ' on this question could lead to babies being hurled from cliffs...

Great post, thanks.