Why horses were used for riding just few thousands of years ago ?

[dust1n]

God wanted it to happen exactly the same way that he promised that he'll enable the Jews to conquer Palestine and to let them to control the world near the end of time.

Not sure what this is to mean.

 

[The Hammer]

The best answer is God's words

ARE YOU NOT aware that God has made subservient to you all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth, and has lavished upon you His blessings, both outward and inward? And yet, among men there is many a one that argues about God without having any knowledge [of Him], without any guidance, and without any light-giving revelation;(31:20)

I'm sorry, but this in no way refutes what I said, or proves anything you said. Nice try though. I guess you don't like me arguing with you, utilizing your own logic. It seems a little asinine coming from the opposition doesn't it? Think about that before you post.

 

[LuisDantas]

The best answer is God's words

ARE YOU NOT aware that God has made subservient to you all that is in the heavens and all that is on earth, and has lavished upon you His blessings, both outward and inward? And yet, among men there is many a one that argues about God without having any knowledge [of Him], without any guidance, and without any light-giving revelation;(31:20)

Even out of the top of my head I can think of quite a lot of creatures and environments that are not subservient.

Granted, maybe they are not subservient to kaffirs specifically, but I'm fairly certain that believers are not masters of wild beasts, for one.

 

[Shad]

The puddle is also amazed how perfect made the hole is

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Homo neanderthals went extinct, i am talking about modern human of today (Homo sapiens sapiens)

Then your timeline was off.

They didn't learn or what and how it doesn't matter ? )

Homo sapiens sapiens have probably not been around for 150,000 years. Even if they had, it didn’t take them that long to learn to ride horses. They didn’t even attempt to do anything of the sort for well over 100,000 years.

What about number "0", if God made it for humans then it should be known to them 100,000 years ago

The opposite of nominalism isn’t that god made numbers or mathematics.

What incidental discoveries will do if human minds were dull.

The incidental discoveries resulted in what happened.

I don't believe that accidents ,chances and luck were behind it.

So god decided that modern humans should spend tens of thousands of years arguably less likely to survive than gorillas and certainly less likely to survive than organisms that remain today much as they did millions of years before the earliest humans?

The ability to think which means that Homo sapiens have a better designed brain compared to the earlier ones..

Better designed for what? And the brains of chimps are basically as complex as our own. The functional properties of the human mind aren’t equivalent with the complexity of the human brain.

 

[FearGod]

Even out of the top of my head I can think of quite a lot of creatures and environments that are not subservient.

Granted, maybe they are not subservient to kaffirs specifically, but I'm fairly certain that believers are not masters of wild beasts, for one.

The mind is what makes us different.

Do you think this world is made subservient for the lions or for the snakes ? it is very easy to realize that it is subservient for humans.

 

[Sapiens]

The mind is what makes us different.

Do you think this world is made subservient for the lions or for the snakes ? it is very easy to realize that it is subservient for humans.

There is no mind, only brain, we are not any more difference than any other animal.

The world is not subservient, that is fatal hubris that is likely to kill us all. Density dependent phenomena always win in the end.

 

[apophenia]

Transportation, similarly the Homing pigeon in sending messages for long distances.

Or seagulls, trained to land near German submarines in World War 2 ?

Well, they landed near any submarines. But that was the idea.

 

[FearGod]

Then your timeline was off.

What do you mean by that ?
How my timeline is off by talking about modern human ?

Homo sapiens sapiens

have probably not been around for 150,000 years. Even if they had, it didn’t take them that long to learn to ride horses. They didn’t even attempt to do anything of the sort for well over 100,000 years.

How did you know ?

The opposite of nominalism isn’t that god made numbers or mathematics.

Humans worked it out, God didn't teach us how to make chicken curry.

The incidental discoveries resulted in what happened.

curiosity and the ability to think and to gain knowledge had resulted in what happened.

So god decided that modern humans should spend tens of thousands of years arguably less likely to survive than gorillas and certainly less likely to survive than organisms that remain today much as they did millions of years before the earliest humans?

Yes God can bring the new creation from the previous ones.

Your Lord is Free of all wants; (He is) the Lord of Mercy. If He wants, He can wipe you out, and have another people _ whomever He wants _ succeed you, just as He raised you from the genes of a different nation.(6:133)

Better designed for what? And the brains of chimps are basically as complex as our own. The functional properties of the human mind aren’t equivalent with the complexity of the human brain.

The Neurons in the cerebral cortex for chimp is 5,500,000,000 whereas in human it is 20,000,000,000

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

What do you mean by that ?

How my timeline is off by talking about modern human ?

Homo sapiens sapiens have not been around for 200,000 years. So far as are best evidence tells us. And certainly, we haven’t taken 150,000 years to learn to ride horses.

How did you know?

Anthropology, archaeology, evolutionary biology…I’m not sure what you mean. How could I possibly know about the length of time that a given species has existed but from the scientific evidence? Are you asking for my sources? If so, I would highly recommend the following intro level books:

Wenke, R. J., & Olszewski, D. (2007). Patterns in prehistory: humankind's first three million years (5th Ed). Oxford University Press.

Tattersall, I. (2008). The world from beginnings to 4000 BCE. Oxford University Press.

Gamble, C. (2007). Origins and revolutions: Human Identity in Earliest Prehistory. Cambridge University Press.

Humans worked it out, God didn't teach us how to make chicken curry.

Well, I can’t tell you if God did or didn’t do this. What I can ask is how this is relevant to mischaracterizing the nominalism issue.

curiosity and the ability to think and to gain knowledge had resulted in what happened.

Were that true, then why the tens & tens of thousands of years when this didn’t happen?

Yes God can bring the new creation from the previous ones.

No doubt such a God you believe in could. However, that isn’t what I asked. I didn’t refer to creation.

The Neurons in the cerebral cortex for chimp is 5,500,000,000 whereas in human it is 20,000,000,000

This isn’t true. Moreover, the actual number of neurons is less important than connectivity. This is best expressed in graph-theoretic terms, as graph theory provides a clustering coefficient for network nodes that is easily related to cognition. Simplistically, it is the dendritic trees of cortical neurons (and the number of connections provided by these) that matter far more than the simple number of neurons.

 

[FearGod]

Or seagulls, trained to land near German submarines in World War 2 ?

Well, they landed near any submarines. But that was the idea.

As i said before that we have hands we can use them to kill and at the same time to help.

 

[apophenia]

This isn’t true. Moreover, the actual number of neurons is less important than connectivity. This is best expressed in graph-theoretic terms, as graph theory provides a clustering coefficient for network nodes that is easily related to cognition. Simplistically, it is the dendritic trees of cortical neurons (and the number of connections provided by these) that matter far more than the simple number of neurons.

Jeez, you are such a smart@ss

I once heard (here we go ... and no, it was not on Vulture Peak, sitting with a crew of bodhisattvas and mahasattvas,.... or was it ?) ... that the number of possible neural connections in a human brain is greater than the number of atomic nucleii in the known material universe.

God, am I an idiot or what ?

More importantly, can you please tell me exactly what kind of idiot I am ?

And keep it <= 23 words, puhleez ! I'm getting old and tired, and dinner is nearly ready.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Jeez, you are such a smart@ss

I'd like to think that I'm an *** in more ways than that (ok, I wouldn't like to think that; it is unfortunately just true).

God, am I an idiot or what ?

Or what (i.e., you aren't an idiot at all; far from it). In one sense the number of possible neural connections in the human brain is infinite. This is highly misleading, though. We don't actually know how many neurons are in the brain, but we have pretty good guesses. The main think to realize is that neurons are cells. They are made of atoms. Every single connection is made up of multiple atoms with multiple atomic nuclei. It is physically impossible for the number of connections to surpass the number of atomic nuclei in the human brain, let alone the universe.

 

[FearGod]

Homo sapiens sapiens have not been around for 200,000 years. So far as are best evidence tells us. And certainly, we haven’t taken 150,000 years to learn to ride horses.

The species that you and all other living human beings on this planet belong to is Homo sapiens. During a time of dramatic climate change 200,000 years ago, Homo sapiens evolved in Africa. Like other early humans that were living at this time, they gathered and hunted food, and evolved behaviors that helped them respond to the challenges of survival in unstable environments.
Homo sapiens

Anthropology, archaeology, evolutionary biology…I’m not sure what you mean. How could I possibly know about the length of time that a given species has existed but from the scientific evidence? Are you asking for my sources? If so, I would highly recommend the following intro level books:

Wenke, R. J., & Olszewski, D. (2007). Patterns in prehistory: humankind's first three million years (5th Ed). Oxford University Press.

Tattersall, I. (2008). The world from beginnings to 4000 BCE. Oxford University Press.

Gamble, C. (2007). Origins and revolutions: Human Identity in Earliest Prehistory. Cambridge University Press.

How you know that they didn't attempt to ride the horse 100,000 years ago and why they didn't try to do so for more than 150,000 years ?

Well, I can’t tell you if God did or didn’t do this. What I can ask is how this is relevant to mischaracterizing the nominalism issue.

And how nominalism is related to the OP.

Were that true, then why the tens & tens of thousands of years when this didn’t happen?

Because the world changed with the new creation of Adam, recent changes in the last few thousands of years confirm it to be true.

No doubt such a God you believe in could. However, that isn’t what I asked. I didn’t refer to creation.

Evolution is planned by God, from simple to more complex , that explains why Homo erectus wasn't able to do what Homo sapiens did.

This isn’t true. Moreover, the actual number of neurons is less important than connectivity. This is best expressed in graph-theoretic terms, as graph theory provides a clustering coefficient for network nodes that is easily related to cognition. Simplistically, it is the dendritic trees of cortical neurons (and the number of connections provided by these) that matter far more than the simple number of neurons.

That was funny indeed, no complexity at all.

University finds brain's complexity beyond belief

 

[apophenia]

I'd like to think that I'm an *** in more ways than that (ok, I wouldn't like to think that; it is unfortunately just true).

I prefer not thinking at all. We're nailed to it. As far as I can see.

Or what (i.e., you aren't an idiot at all; far from it). In one sense the number of possible neural connections in the human brain is infinite. This is highly misleading, though. We don't actually know how many neurons are in the brain, but we have pretty good guesses. The main think to realize is that neurons are cells. They are made of atoms. Every single connection is made up of multiple atoms with multiple atomic nuclei. It is physically impossible for the number of connections to surpass the number of atomic nuclei in the human brain, let alone the universe.

Yeah. But all the possible interconnections (as opposed to the current set) use the same atoms.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Yeah. But all the possible interconnections (as opposed to the current set) use the same atoms.

For all practical purposes, yes.

 

[apophenia]

For all practical purposes, yes.

So ... given say 100 billion neurons with an average of X dendrites per neuron ... ( I know it varies, there are uni and multi polar neurons of different types etc) ...there are 100X billion dendrites.

I know that as the nervous system develops, the neuronal network organises itself ( bear with me, I am a simple layman), and specific connections are made. Let's call the total number of connections at a given time C.

But those 100X billion dendrites could each have different (alternate) connections.

I am too lazy to do the math, but obviously, thinking of neurons as patch bays (as in a music studio) and dendrites as patch cords, there is a staggering number of ways to patch the system. I've forgotten some very basic maths just sitting around making music - is it C factorial ? Whatever.

It is that number to which I was referring. And as I said before, the number of atoms in the patch cords is a constant, regardless of how many possible ways there are to patch the system.

I'm not suggesting that all the patch configurations are possible, but if they were, what would that number be ?

A silly question I suppose, but I'm just wondering if those dudes on Vulture Peak were like totally tripping or is that number comparable to the total number of extant atomic nucleii ?

It sounds so unreasonable as to be ridiculous, but hey, what isn't ? LOL

I'm a bit thick, as you can tell, so I rely on not-only-but-also-smart@sses to help me with this kind of nonsense

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So ... given say 100 billion neurons with an average of X dendrites per neuron ... ( I know it varies, there are uni and multi polar neurons of different types etc) ...there are 100X billion dendrites.

Without getting into the number of dendrites per neuron (for good reason, as these can be unipolar as you say or have well over 100,000 connections), there's a bit of an issue here. First, connectivity overlaps. That is, consider a neuron connected by dendrites to 200,000 others. It is possible (mathematically) for there to be only 200,000 other neurons. More realistically, connectivity isn't just a matter of inputs to neurons because neurons share connections that can't be counted as distinct.

Second, and relatedly, dendrites are all input that determine a neurons dynamics (its spike trains- their rate and timing). However, no matter how many inputs, there is only one output (the action potential that propagates down the axon). Although it would be a mistake to do so (and nobody does), it is technically true that each neuron is only connected to one other in that it can only send signals to one other. Connectivity is rather complex. It involves most of all the ways in which the inputs to a neuron relate to the network it is connected to, which is hard to quantify other than approximately. =

I am too lazy to do the math, but obviously, thinking of neurons as patch bays (as in a music studio) and dendrites as patch cords, there is a staggering number of ways to patch the system. I've forgotten some very basic maths just sitting around making music - is it C factorial ? Whatever.

There is a truly staggering number of connections. However, every connection is composed of atoms, and thus there are many more nuclei than there are connections. But this in no way should lessen the incredible complexity and connectivity of the brain.

The neurotransmitters and so forth that make neuronal connectivity possible are made from atoms, as are dendrites, axons, etc. Thus for every connection we have lots of nuclei. Many thousands or millions depending upon the level of analysis.

 

[apophenia]

Without getting into the number of dendrites per neuron (for good reason, as these can be unipolar as you say or have well over 100,000 connections), there's a bit of an issue here. First, connectivity overlaps. That is, consider a neuron connected by dendrites to 200,000 others. It is possible (mathematically) for there to be only 200,000 other neurons. More realistically, connectivity isn't just a matter of inputs to neurons because neurons share connections that can't be counted as distinct.

Second, and relatedly, dendrites are all input that determine a neurons dynamics (its spike trains- their rate and timing). However, no matter how many inputs, there is only one output (the action potential that propagates down the axon). Although it would be a mistake to do so (and nobody does), it is technically true that each neuron is only connected to one other in that it can only send signals to one other. Connectivity is rather complex. It involves most of all the ways in which the inputs to a neuron relate to the network it is connected to, which is hard to quantify other than approximately. =



There is a truly staggering number of connections. However, every connection is composed of atoms, and thus there are many more nuclei than there are connections. But this in no way should lessen the incredible complexity and connectivity of the brain.

The neurotransmitters and so forth that make neuronal connectivity possible are made from atoms, as are dendrites, axons, etc. Thus for every connection we have lots of nuclei. Many thousands or millions depending upon the level of analysis.

Thanks for answering my possibly annoyingly silly questions. I always learn something from you.

Unfortunately I have still failed to express my question clearly, and there remains a question - which I may come back to at another time. It is more of a math question than a biological one. Nevertheless, as I said, you have given me some more education about the biology. And it has got me thinking about the structure of one of my favorite old pieces of algorithmic music software - Musicbox, from John Dunn (AlgoArts).

My question revolves around this - (I can't help myself LOL)
"There is a truly staggering number of connections. However, every connection is composed of atoms, and thus there are many more nuclei than there are connections. "

I am asking, if all the connections were disconnected, how many different ways could they be re-connected. It is more of a thought experiment than a question about the actual structure as it is.

But thanks for taking the time. I found it useful trying to frame my question. But now my back is hurting, meaning two things 1) I need better ergonomics and 2) it's bedtime.

Cheers

 

[icehorse]

As a horse owner and rider, I have to say that god could have done a far better job making horses ride-able.