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

[FearGod]

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

Children can ride horses.

 

[icehorse]

Hey FearGod,

I think you managed to find a picture of Icelandic horses, thanks!

 

[The Hammer]

Using your hands for doing bad things doesn't mean that God created them for bad deeds but still you can use them for such.

Which in turn means that humans being able to train and ride horses, does not mean God created horses to be trained and ridden. You have disproven your own argument.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

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

I hate to think of what many of those things are (e.g., how not to write posts, how not to explain things, etc.). But thank you!

Unfortunately I have still failed to express my question clearly

Chances are I've failed to explain clearly. I'm pretty bad outside of a classroom or some kind of face-to-face (or even voce-to-voice) environment when it comes to explanations.

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.

Right. The possible configurations states. Maybe the following might help to clarify either what I'm saying or how I'm misunderstanding you. Imagine a bunch of lego pieces. Even with just a few blocks/bricks, there are a lot of possible ways to connect them. But each configuration also involves a configurations of the atoms within the bricks.

Another issue is that neural connectivity is easily over-simplified. That is, on the one hand we have neurons with all of their dendrites and their axon. But connectivity is really more of a function of how these connections are "weighted". To simplify and already over-simplified account, imagine a single neuron that receives input from 100,000 other neurons. What makes such connectivity so special is that the neuron not only responds to different "input" neurons differently, but also changes how it responds to all of them over time (constantly). In a very real sense, neural connectivity isn't the input/output connections among neurons but correlations between spike trains & firing rates among neurons (coordinated activity/synchronization of biochemical signals). So the configuration space isn't just more complicated than actual, physical connections, it's also model dependent (there's no "right way" that we know of to model neuronal connectivity).

That said, the configuration space of all possible connections, while staggering, is also a configuration space of the constituent elements (including atomic nuclei) of the sum total of possible connections/configurations. For every neural connection, you have a configuration of atomic nuclei, and those can be configured in far more ways than the connection. It's a bit like having an enormous Word document. You can order the words on the pages in all sorts of ways, but that's nothing to the ways you can order the letters. Another way to look at it is to look at what actually causes a neuron to fire (the basis for the entirety of neural activity). For the most part, it's changes to the membrane potential or the difference between the electrical potential inside the neuron vs. outside. There are lots of ways that atoms can cause the same state that will cause a neuron to spike/fire, because for any given intercellular & extracellular electrical potential, there are lots of different configurations of ions, neurotransmitters, the states of voltage gates, etc., can cause these potentials. Say a neuron reaches a certain voltage level that causes it to spike. The number of ways to reach that same voltage level is enormous, and is based on atomic/subatomic "parts" involved which are not "parts" involved in the connections.

Is that any closer to an answer?

 

[apophenia]

I hate to think of what many of those things are (e.g., how not to write posts, how not to explain things, etc.). But thank you!


Chances are I've failed to explain clearly. I'm pretty bad outside of a classroom or some kind of face-to-face (or even voce-to-voice) environment when it comes to explanations.



Right. The possible configurations states. Maybe the following might help to clarify either what I'm saying or how I'm misunderstanding you. Imagine a bunch of lego pieces. Even with just a few blocks/bricks, there are a lot of possible ways to connect them. But each configuration also involves a configurations of the atoms within the bricks.

Another issue is that neural connectivity is easily over-simplified. That is, on the one hand we have neurons with all of their dendrites and their axon. But connectivity is really more of a function of how these connections are "weighted". To simplify and already over-simplified account, imagine a single neuron that receives input from 100,000 other neurons. What makes such connectivity so special is that the neuron not only responds to different "input" neurons differently, but also changes how it responds to all of them over time (constantly). In a very real sense, neural connectivity isn't the input/output connections among neurons but correlations between spike trains & firing rates among neurons (coordinated activity/synchronization of biochemical signals). So the configuration space isn't just more complicated than actual, physical connections, it's also model dependent (there's no "right way" that we know of to model neuronal connectivity).

That said, the configuration space of all possible connections, while staggering, is also a configuration space of the constituent elements (including atomic nuclei) of the sum total of possible connections/configurations. For every neural connection, you have a configuration of atomic nuclei, and those can be configured in far more ways than the connection. It's a bit like having an enormous Word document. You can order the words on the pages in all sorts of ways, but that's nothing to the ways you can order the letters. Another way to look at it is to look at what actually causes a neuron to fire (the basis for the entirety of neural activity). For the most part, it's changes to the membrane potential or the difference between the electrical potential inside the neuron vs. outside. There are lots of ways that atoms can cause the same state that will cause a neuron to spike/fire, because for any given intercellular & extracellular electrical potential, there are lots of different configurations of ions, neurotransmitters, the states of voltage gates, etc., can cause these potentials. Say a neuron reaches a certain voltage level that causes it to spike. The number of ways to reach that same voltage level is enormous, and is based on atomic/subatomic "parts" involved which are not "parts" involved in the connections.

Is that any closer to an answer?

"Is that any closer to an answer?"

No ! But I'm really happy about that. I'm learning far more than I would have if you had answered my question ! My question is actually kind of trivial and dumb, but your answers are excellent.

Before I do something counter-productive like get my question out clearly, I would like to mention ergoloid mesylates (hydergine), which is at least as significant as Dr Hofmann's more famous compound. Google it. Do yourself a favor ! The reason your reply led me to suggest this is that its mode of functioning involves intracellular processes in the neuron, such as you mentioned. It is the original 'smart drug', and until recently at least, the most popular on earth (and possibly elsewhere). It can restore memory in the elderly, it is dopaminergic, , a neurotrophic factor, improves brain health by virtue of increased blood flow, and potentiates all my favorite compounds in a big way. Also, it extends the life expectancy of rats by an average of 150%. Available here ( listed as dihydroergotoxine) Iron-Dragon Research Peptides and Chemicals

Now, where were we ? Aaah yes .... the words and letters in a document ....

If there are a billion letters in a document, how many ways are there of rearranging them ? Is it 1,000,000,000 factorial ?

See, stoopid question

In other words, if it were possible to physically disconnect and reconnect the dendrites in any way at all, what is the number of possible reconfigurations ? ( Of course, the number of atoms would remain the same).

Incredibly stoopid question.

Proving that one can learn a lot by asking a smart person a stoopid question.

btw ... I just ordered some more .... big music composition project !

 

[apophenia]

Was it due to evolution for both humans and horses or a creator planned it for humans ?
What do you think and how you explain it by science if it wasn't by the creator ?

Dear FearGod,
please forgive me if it seems that I have gone off-topic. I hope the posts may be of interest to you anyway.

From my point of view, as a lateral-thinking high-functioning sociopath, it is all relevant to your question anyway. But if I continue this discussion with Legion, I am happy to do it in another thread.

Salaam

 

[FearGod]

Which in turn means that humans being able to train and ride horses, does not mean God created horses to be trained and ridden. You have disproven your own argument.

Riding horses is a fact, but how to use it is another thing, comparing it to my argument, horses were used for good deeds (transportation) and for bad deeds (wars), thanks God that horses are saved from people's stupidity and not used in wars anymore.

 

[FearGod]

Dear FearGod,
please forgive me if it seems that I have gone off-topic. I hope the posts may be of interest to you anyway.

From my point of view, as a lateral-thinking high-functioning sociopath, it is all relevant to your question anyway. But if I continue this discussion with Legion, I am happy to do it in another thread.

Salaam

Dear apophenia,

I appreciate your inputs and i agree that human's brain complexity can be made in one other thread.

Salam

 

[The Hammer]

Riding horses is a fact, but how to use it is another thing, comparing it to my argument, horses were used for good deeds (transportation) and for bad deeds (wars), thanks God that horses are saved from people's stupidity and not used in wars anymore.

I agree, riding horses is a fact. But saying that we can ride horses only because God designed them to be ridden has no evidence whatsoever. Which is why I pointed out that if you want to argue that, then you also have to look at dolphins, which we use for minesweeping, which means they were designed by god for that purpose.

Or you can look at cows, pigs and sheep, which are edible and were 'designed' to be domicile and subservient to man, for the purpose of flesh consumption. You can take absolutely any argument and say "god did it", and immediately claim that that is the truth and nothing but the absolute truth. That does not make it accurate or correct.

You can replace the word God, with anything and it will be just as inaccurate. Allah created horses for man, Jesus created horses for man, Odin created horses for man.

The actual answer is, man, through his creative brain, found a use for horses. Much like we found a use for dogs, cats, steel, and rubber. I don't care if you believe in God. But "God did it" is not an answer for anything, in the mundane world.

 

[FearGod]

I agree, riding horses is a fact. But saying that we can ride horses only because God designed them to be ridden has no evidence whatsoever. Which is why I pointed out that if you want to argue that, then you also have to look at dolphins, which we use for minesweeping, which means they were designed by god for that purpose.

Or you can look at cows, pigs and sheep, which are edible and were 'designed' to be domicile and subservient to man, for the purpose of flesh consumption. You can take absolutely any argument and say "god did it", and immediately claim that that is the truth and nothing but the absolute truth. That does not make it accurate or correct.

You can replace the word God, with anything and it will be just as inaccurate. Allah created horses for man, Jesus created horses for man, Odin created horses for man.

The actual answer is, man, through his creative brain, found a use for horses. Much like we found a use for dogs, cats, steel, and rubber. I don't care if you believe in God. But "God did it" is not an answer for anything, in the mundane world.

It happened to be that horses were rideable, it happened to be that dogs were helpful, it happened to be that sheep, chicken and cows were tasteful and it happened to be that humans are the wisest creature on earth.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

No !

Darn. Still at least my failures seem to have some positive effect (or you're being overly kind; either way, it assuages the damage to my fragile ego ).

My question is actually kind of trivial and dumb

Einstein had a trivial, "dumb" question: what happens if you turn on a light when travelling at the speed of light? The quest for an answer gave us special relativity. One of the most well-known (and most misunderstood) proofs is Gödel's incompleteness proof, which is based on the trivial paradox "this statement is false." Never underestimate the power of seemingly trivial questions!

Before I do something counter-productive like get my question out clearly, I would like to mention ergoloid mesylates (hydergine), which is at least as significant as Dr Hofmann's more famous compound. Google it.

I don't have to google it. I literally have the book on it (which is not as fun as saying "I literally wrote the book", but I'll take what I can get). Claude Weil wrote Hydrogine: Pharmacologic & Clinical Facts. I've also followed a fair amount of research on its use over the past 30 years or so to treat dementia and as a "brain/cognitive enhancer." Although dated, I like the conclusion from the paper an Annals of Internal Medicine "perspectives" article:
"Not many drugs survive in actual therapeutic practice for 30 years. Scarcely any drug has lasted that long with so many fundamental questions still unanswered. Ergoloid mesylates may yet turn out to be a placebo, despite the many trials that show its superiority."

A more boring (but also much more recent- 2011) study provides some more comprehensive information, including possible mechanisms of action:
"Another FDA-approved drug is ergoloid mesylates (Hydergine® ), which acts centrally to decrease vascular tone and slow heart rate and also acts peripherally to block alpha-adrenergic receptors (Hollister & Yesavage, 1984 ). Another possible mechanism is its effect on neuronal cell metabolism, possibly resulting in improved oxygen uptake and improved cerebral metabolism, which in turn may normalize depressed neurotransmitter levels. According to the product label, ergoloid mesylates has been used to treat symptoms of an idiopathic decline in mental capacity (such as cognitive and interpersonal skills, mood, self-care, and apparent motivation) related to aging or to an underlying dementing condition such as primary progressive dementia, Alzheimer's dementia, or senile-onset multi-infarct dementia."

One problem is that most of the studies on the effects of Hydergine on cognition is that they have been largely limited to either animal studies or efficacy in dementia and related geriatric conditions. Another is the age-old difficulty trying to quantify things like memory and intelligence in ways that allow us to accurately test the effects of such drugs on these. I remember asking, just to be a smart-@ss, the professor in an upper-level undergrad psych class Learning & Memory which drugs she would recommend for enhancing cognitive abilities for exam prep and exam taking. She actually responded "snort adderall". Needless to say, that threw me off a bit.

Hydergine reportedly effects both serotonergic dopaminergic pathways, and there is evidence that it is both an agonist and antagonist for serotonin receptors (opposite effects). There are a bunch of other possible effects on neural activity (i.e., signaling/firing) and metabolism, not to mention effects on the CNS and cardiovascular system. The increases in cognitive function (to the extent they exist, which I think they likely do, meaning it isn't just the placebo effect) are probably related more to the effects on brain metabolism than to neuronal transmission, but the jury is still out.

If there are a billion letters in a document, how many ways are there of rearranging them ? Is it 1,000,000,000 factorial ?

It depends upon whether order matters (and possibly other things), but in general yes. There's a great site (I think, some instructors disagree) you may already know of: WolframAlpha. Their examples page contains a page on sample ways to ask questions or calculate combinatorics questions along with a subpage on permutations. An example question is number of permutations of 23 elements (you can change the number or the way it is asked and get the same result). The answer for the number of permutations of a set with 23 elements is 25,85,201,673,888,4976,640,000. I have several proprietary and extremely expensive (well, not for me but for the lab/university) software programs designed for things like computational analyses. When 23! is the above answer, imagine a million factorial. If you'd rather not imagine, I've attached the answer (it's a pdf file 1,398 pages long).[/QUOTE]

 

[The Hammer]

It happened to be that horses were rideable, it happened to be that dogs were helpful, it happened to be that sheep, chicken and cows were tasteful and it happened to be that humans are the wisest creature on earth.

Yup, and none of that is proof of a creator.

 

[Shad]

So saith the puddle!

 

[apophenia]

Darn. Still at least my failures seem to have some positive effect (or you're being overly kind; either way, it assuages the damage to my fragile ego ).

He he.

You have almost answered it !

What is the factorial root ( is that even a term ? but I know you know what I mean) of the number of atomic nucleii in the known universe ?

Approximately will do.

Then the question is - does (100 billion x (average dendrites per neuron)) exceed that number ?

And voila - apophenia has his pretext... I mean question .... answered.

I literally have the book on it (which is not as fun as saying "I literally wrote the book", but I'll take what I can get). Claude Weil wrote Hydrogine: Pharmacologic & Clinical Facts. I've also followed a fair amount of research on its use over the past 30 years or so to treat dementia and as a "brain/cognitive enhancer." Although dated, I like the conclusion from the paper an Annals of Internal Medicine "perspectives" article:
"Not many drugs survive in actual therapeutic practice for 30 years. Scarcely any drug has lasted that long with so many fundamental questions still unanswered. Ergoloid mesylates may yet turn out to be a placebo, despite the many trials that show its superiority."

My first-personal trials sure have ...

One problem is that most of the studies on the effects of Hydergine on cognition is that they have been largely limited to either animal studies or efficacy in dementia and related geriatric conditions.

I also did some experiments on a few friends ... using it as a potentiating prep

Amazing. That was the general concensus. From fussy people with no knowledge of the compound, and therefore no bias. They said it added huge depth and stability, remarks of that kind.

I think I have already told my story of how it precipitated an 'astral travelling' kind of thingy in 1979, in combination with a diethylamide *cough*- it was superbly didactic - pre-targeted in the manner of Dr John Lilly's 'programming and metaprogramming', but sans float tank. ( I managed a float center in 1987 - another great topic ) That was the book that first blew my mind. It really helped me understand more about hypnosis too, which was where my experimentation began.

I went to sleep during the 30 minutes before 'zuckerzeit' (Cluster ! Moebius and Roedelius !), which is kind of amazing in itself. In retrospect,that was probably due to the suggested adrenergic blocking effect. And woke up in orbit around an animated spherical representation of the Rockwell AIM65 system which I was teaching myself using Rockwell's (absolutely excellent) 3 book documentation - a league away from "Applesoft for dummies' or whatever (which was all brand new at that time). And I understood with ease this new territory which had been severely testing me.And off I went and wrote a machine code sequencer program to drive my minimoog. All in all, startling and delightful. So was the music ...

I also provided various people with just 2-5mg per day for a few weeks. Varying responses. Some people were loving it, and procured more. Others (maybe expecting something more pyrotechnic or whatever from ergoloid alone), were unimpressed.

Now that MJ is legal, the masses really should evaluate the combo, it's awesome .Cogito ergot !...Maybe I should STFU ? I performed under that name in 1979 (not STFU). The 'gine genie really lifted that year for me in lots of ways.

Hydergine reportedly effects both serotonergic dopaminergic pathways, and there is evidence that it is both an agonist and antagonist for serotonin receptors (opposite effects). There are a bunch of other possible effects on neural activity (i.e., signaling/firing) and metabolism, not to mention effects on the CNS and cardiovascular system. The increases in cognitive function (to the extent they exist, which I think they likely do, meaning it isn't just the placebo effect) are probably related more to the effects on brain metabolism than to neuronal transmission, but the jury is still out.

And a stuffy nose. The only (very minor) downside for me.

When 23! is the above answer, imagine a million factorial. If you'd rather not imagine, I've attached the answer (it's a pdf file 1,398 pages long).

I don't need to imagine what I am.
I can see the 17 trillion mind moments in each eye blink - they look exactly like this. To paraphrase Rumi.... and Gautama.

And sound like this ...

Oh yeah, this ....strangely enervating 'presque dissonance' from 1974 ... is zuckerzeit. Precursor to psytrance. Sometimes I prefer the precursors.

Phew...

Can't wait to know if the number of possible interconnections exceeds the number of atomic nucleii !

Get on to it !

Bedtime now Theanine plus vinpocetine => Sweet dreams ! That's another story ...

And thanks so much for the further data on Hydergine.

I think that was the point. Wasn't it ?

 

[SomeRandom]

It happened to be that horses were rideable, it happened to be that dogs were helpful, it happened to be that sheep, chicken and cows were tasteful and it happened to be that humans are the wisest creature on earth.

Dogs aren't helpful because God designed them that way. Dogs are helpful because WE designed them that way. Dogs are wolves, though unlike their wild ancestors, they can actually recognize many human gestures/body language. Dogs and wolves have about 1% difference in their blood (if I recall Biology class correctly.) However you can't just grab a wolf pup from the wild, raise it like a dog and expect it to act like one or be helpful in the way dogs are to us now.

Sheep, chicken, cows, pigs, snakes, grubs, ants,lizards, spiders, turtles, dugongs, whales, shark, giraffe. What do these animals all have in common? They are eaten by humans. But Sheep, chicken, pig, cows etc aren't tasty to all humans. In fact some humans live well without one or all types of meat in their diets.

It also happened that marijuana plants, when digested, alters one's state. A high, if you will. It also happened that grapes, when fermented, gives one a similar reaction and certain types of mushrooms too. So let us praise the Lord! For he gave us ways to get ****faced! How very thoughtful of him. Yay!

 

[apophenia]

Dogs are wolves, though unlike their wild ancestors, they can actually recognize many human gestures/body language.

It's the eyebrows.

It also happened that marijuana plants, when digested, alters one's state. A high, if you will. It also happened that grapes, when fermented, gives one a similar reaction and certain types of mushrooms too. So let us praise the Lord! For he gave us ways to get ****faced! How very thoughtful of him. Yay!

Pass the lord, and praise the ammunition ! It's nature's way of saying high ....

*eyebrows*

"Have I been drinking soma ?"
- Rig Veda

 

[apophenia]

chicken and cows were tasteful and it happened to be that humans are the wisest creature on earth.

according to humans

 

[SomeRandom]

It's the eyebrows.

But of course. And to quote Ursula from the Little Mermaid, Never underestimate the importance of body language!

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I think that was the point. Wasn't it ?

I had a point? Wow. First time for everything.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

What is the factorial root ( is that even a term ? but I know you know what I mean) of the number of atomic nucleii in the known universe ?

Factorials are permutations of a specific kind. I prefer permutations here because it is closer to configurations which is what we're really dealing with. But, I have to confess I'm not sure what you mean by factorial root (unless you mean the total number of atomic nucleii). Luckily, either way the answer is "I don't know". Looking back, the only times I can remember reading figures about this is actually in this kind of context: a comparison between something and the total number of atoms or particles or nucleii in the universe. I tend to distrust such figures. The truth is we really don't even know how many neurons are in the brain, nor the average number of connections just considering dendrites. Here I can supply approximates, but I can't recall ever coming across an approximate number of atomic nucleii in the universe in any cosmological, astrophysics, or theoretical physics textbook, volume, monograph, or study.

Then the question is - does (100 billion x (average dendrites per neuron)) exceed that number ?

No. Absolutely not. That I can say. Even were all neurons in the brain pyramidal neurons (or all Betz cells, probably the largest of these), 100 billion times this number would be astronomically smaller than the number of atomic nucleii in the universe, and thus also smaller than any configuration/permutation of atomic nucleii.

Cogito ergot

I might have to get that as a tattoo.