Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Spiders are intelligent
AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 106 of 147 (446767)
01-07-2008 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by molbiogirl
01-06-2008 9:16 PM


Different Quote Boxes
Members,
Please make it clear when your are quoting a poster and when you are quoting an outside source by using a different quote box for quoting posters from what you use to quote an outside source.
quote:
There are two types of quote boxes.
Please try to use them to avoid confusion and misunderstanding.
AdminPD writes:
There is also the option of providing the writer's name.
This makes it easier for readers to follow the discussion.
Please direct any comments concerning this Admin msg to the Moderation Thread.
Any response in this thread will receive a 24 hour timeout.
Thank you Purple

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by molbiogirl, posted 01-06-2008 9:16 PM molbiogirl has not replied

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 107 of 147 (446769)
01-07-2008 6:29 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by molbiogirl
01-06-2008 9:16 PM


Look. A spider's brain is smaller than the head of a pin.
Limits of scale place a ceiling on how flexible an animal's behavior can become, because smaller animals have fewer, not smaller, neurons.
Fewer components for a brain means that fewer neurons are available for sensory organs, problem-solving mechanisms, and cognitive/behavioral flexibility. This is a fundamental engineering problem. It limits how complex or flexible those systems can become.
Now THAT is sloppy, fuzzy biology. Nobody knows how cognition works let alone any method of quantifying it. Observing brain responses is not the same as understanding cognition. What you have written shows that your position is underpinned by "gut feeling" at the expense of impartiality.
A program that draws a spider's web is a long call from a robot spider, don't you think? However, when someone can put a spider in a box and get a computer to predict the next web precisely, perhaps you would supply a link to the details.
You could also use fuzzy logic and neural networks to model movement of people in an airport.
Wrong. The geometry is not random.
You like that word, "wrong", don't you. Makes you feel important, I dare say. Try again. I said IN a randon geometry, not WITH a random geometry.
Also, the very clauses you have highlighted only point to general observations and factors the spider uses. You can do the same with humans. When you can predict the actual web in a given situation, post a link to the details.
There are over 5000 papers on chemical signalling.
Wow! I'm impressed...NOT. Number of papers on a subject does not translate to understanding the subject. But this argument does demonstrate your mentality.
What was your exact search criteria by the way?
Edited by sinequanon, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by molbiogirl, posted 01-06-2008 9:16 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by molbiogirl, posted 01-07-2008 6:48 AM sinequanon has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 108 of 147 (446770)
01-07-2008 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by sinequanon
01-07-2008 6:29 AM


Nobody knows how cognition works let alone any method of quantifying it.
This is OT, so I will be brief.
Much is known about the neural basis of certain cognitive processes. This is especially true of perception and memory. Neocortical sensory systems are sequentially organized networks involving a primary receiving area, which receives the major topographically organized inputs from thalamic regions, and parallel streams of association areas, each of which can also be organized in terms of sequential processing stations.
However, when someone can put a spider in a box and get a computer to predict the next web precisely, perhaps you would supply a link to the details.
Why on earth is it necessary to predict one particular web? Spiders don't spin the exact same web over and over again.
I said IN a randon (sic) geometry, not WITH a random geometry.
What is the difference?
You can do the same with humans.
What on earth are you talking about?
What was your exact search criteria by the way?
Chemical signalling spiders.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by sinequanon, posted 01-07-2008 6:29 AM sinequanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by sinequanon, posted 01-07-2008 7:16 AM molbiogirl has replied
 Message 111 by nwr, posted 01-07-2008 8:39 AM molbiogirl has replied

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 109 of 147 (446773)
01-07-2008 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by molbiogirl
01-07-2008 6:48 AM


This is OT, so I will be brief.
Much is known about the neural basis of certain cognitive processes. This is especially true of perception and memory. Neocortical sensory systems are sequentially organized networks involving a primary receiving area, which receives the major topographically organized inputs from thalamic regions, and parallel streams of association areas, each of which can also be organized in terms of sequential processing stations.
Lovely rhetoric. Ever considered a career in politics?
Nobody knows how cognition works let alone any method of quantifying it.
Why on earth is it necessary to predict one particular web? Spiders don't spin the exact same web over and over again.
OK. Say I'm modelling humans building a house. Why would it be necessary to predict one particular house. Would "it will have foundations, walls, and a roof", be enough? I could get a computer to simulate such a design in a given situation, and put any differences with reality down to "other variations". Conclusion - no intelligence used when humans build houses.
What is the difference?
'IN' refers to location. 'WITH' refers to form. The spider can fit its web inside an irregular and random geometry.
What on earth are you talking about?
Observing that spiders take light, gravity etc. into consideration when building webs does not demonstrate any difference in behaviour. Human's also consider light and gravity when building houses.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by molbiogirl, posted 01-07-2008 6:48 AM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by molbiogirl, posted 01-07-2008 3:19 PM sinequanon has not replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 110 of 147 (446781)
01-07-2008 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by molbiogirl
01-07-2008 2:13 AM


molbiogirl writes:
Damage repair is identical to web building.
How is it different? How is doing a second time what they did the first time improvisation?
They have to recognize what damage has been done, assess the damage, and make a decision as to whether or not it's worth attemting repair. Then look at the two very different and apparently clever ways that the same species used to solve two similar, but slightly different, problems.
Not only does it show that they can recieve knowledge and act on it, but they can do so in ways that don't appear to be pre-programmed even if, in a sense, they are.
BTW, when you ask for evidence to back up assertions, and you seem to mean references to the relevant literature, you have to consider that you're not only dealing with (very incomplete and tentative) science, but with the philosophy and definition of intelligence. It's a notoriously difficult word, and any definition made will be debatable. I have looked around, and haven't found anything yet that would help us either way on the question "are spiders intelligent?".
The only thing that I'm really strongly asserting is that "intelligent" is a relative adjective. For example, if I were to ask you whether an organism with a pinhead size brain is likely to be more intelligent than one with a nervous system, but no identifiable brain, what would you answer?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by molbiogirl, posted 01-07-2008 2:13 AM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by molbiogirl, posted 01-07-2008 3:31 PM bluegenes has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 111 of 147 (446788)
01-07-2008 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by molbiogirl
01-07-2008 6:48 AM


sinequanon writes:
Nobody knows how cognition works let alone any method of quantifying it.
molbiogirl writes:
Much is known about the neural basis of certain cognitive processes.
I'm inclined to agree with sinequanon here. Sure, we know quite a bit about neural processes, but this is primarily in humans rather than spiders. There are plenty of hypotheses in the literature as to how cognition works, but none of them adequately accounts for cognition.
molbiogirl writes:
Why on earth is it necessary to predict one particular web?
On this point I have to agree with molbiogirl. Relatively simple automated procedures can construct apparently complex structures, yet what is constructed would vary with the physical conditions. So unpredictability does not demonstrate that this is not done by a relatively simple stimulus-response system.

Let's end the political smears

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by molbiogirl, posted 01-07-2008 6:48 AM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by molbiogirl, posted 01-07-2008 3:11 PM nwr has replied
 Message 127 by sinequanon, posted 01-08-2008 7:45 AM nwr has replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 112 of 147 (446791)
01-07-2008 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by ringo
01-03-2008 11:51 AM


Ringo writes:
I seem to remember reading somewhere that reptiles have some responses that aren't processed in the brain at all? Like the message goes straight from eye to mouth and they bite without "thinking" about it?
Same thing gappens with most things. When you automatically drop a hot cup you are bypassing the brain.
Reflex arc - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by ringo, posted 01-03-2008 11:51 AM ringo has not replied

  
Larni
Member (Idle past 164 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 113 of 147 (446793)
01-07-2008 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by sinequanon
01-05-2008 8:51 AM


sinequanon writes:
I have seen no evidence that, given a repeated situation, a spider compulsively builds a replica web, with each strand in the corresponding place.
If an orb spider catches more prey in one part of its web (by whatever reason) it will enlarge its web in that direction.
Is this reason? I think not. I would assert that this requires a brain of dramatically increased complexity.
However the famous Portia spider seems to display a great deal of lateral thinking.
Portia labiata: the spider so smart it puts mammals to shame

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by sinequanon, posted 01-05-2008 8:51 AM sinequanon has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 114 of 147 (446921)
01-07-2008 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by nwr
01-07-2008 8:39 AM


Sure, we know quite a bit about neural processes, but this is primarily in humans rather than spiders. There are plenty of hypotheses in the literature as to how cognition works, but none of them adequately accounts for cognition.
Absolutely, nwr. Which I mentioned earlier. However. It's a far cry from "We know nothing." which is Sin's stance.
We have reams of data about how the brain works. And within 5 years we will have a "theory of the mind".
Sin's position is akin to saying: "We know nothing about gravity. We don't even know what gravity is." Well, yes. We don't know what gravity is. However, we do know a whole hell of a lot about gravity.
On this point I have to agree with molbiogirl. Relatively simple automated procedures can construct apparently complex structures, yet what is constructed would vary with the physical conditions. So unpredictability does not demonstrate that this is not done by a relatively simple stimulus-response system.
Thank you.
Sin. Another analogy. What you're saying is akin to "How can you predict a particular snowflake?" It's not necessary to predict a particular snowflake. A simple program can predict the form snowflakes take.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by nwr, posted 01-07-2008 8:39 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by sidelined, posted 01-07-2008 3:18 PM molbiogirl has not replied
 Message 118 by nwr, posted 01-07-2008 3:44 PM molbiogirl has replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 115 of 147 (446924)
01-07-2008 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by molbiogirl
01-07-2008 3:11 PM


molbiogirl
A simple program can predict the form snowflakes take.
As long as that includes 12 sided snowflakes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by molbiogirl, posted 01-07-2008 3:11 PM molbiogirl has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 116 of 147 (446925)
01-07-2008 3:19 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by sinequanon
01-07-2008 7:16 AM


'IN' refers to location. 'WITH' refers to form. The spider can fit its web inside an irregular and random geometry.
That doesn't matter, Sin. The program says something like "Find something solid. Attach a line to it. Move to something else solid. Anchor line to that. Repeat."
Observing that spiders take light, gravity etc. into consideration when building webs does not demonstrate any difference in behaviour. Human's also consider light and gravity when building houses.
Analogy abuse!
We do not use gravity to orient our houses. We have gravity. We build houses. Spiders use gravity as an orientation tool because they move in 3D. We move in 2D. Yes, I know. Houses are in 3D space. But they are not built using gravity to orient themselves within that space.
We do not use light to orient our houses. We like light. We point our houses/windows toward light. That is fundamentally different from using light as a orientation tool to reckon position in a 3D space.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by sinequanon, posted 01-07-2008 7:16 AM sinequanon has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 117 of 147 (446930)
01-07-2008 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by bluegenes
01-07-2008 8:00 AM


They have to recognize what damage has been done, assess the damage, and make a decision as to whether or not it's worth attemting repair.
Blue, that's not improvisation.
The program runs like this. "Tug on the web. Check it out. Uh oh. Line missing. Find gap. Fix gap. Done."
Then look at the two very different and apparently clever ways that the same species used to solve two similar, but slightly different, problems.
This argues against improvisation, not for it. The program fixes damage. Not two damaged webs are the same. Similar. Not the same.
There isn't a Platonic ideal of "The Web" in a spiders brain. It's a program that takes a simple set of inputs and cranks out an answer. Like Sin mentioned, it probably uses fuzzy logic.
Not only does it show that they can recieve knowledge and act on it, but they can do so in ways that don't appear to be pre-programmed even if, in a sense, they are.
You haven't demonstrated that.
BTW, when you ask for evidence to back up assertions, and you seem to mean references to the relevant literature, you have to consider that you're not only dealing with (very incomplete and tentative) science, but with the philosophy and definition of intelligence. It's a notoriously difficult word, and any definition made will be debatable. I have looked around, and haven't found anything yet that would help us either way on the question "are spiders intelligent?".
I spent time (briefly) in the Entomology Dept. so I know that's not true.
Try looking again. "Spiders. Instinct. Web building."
The only thing that I'm really strongly asserting is that "intelligent" is a relative adjective. For example, if I were to ask you whether an organism with a pinhead size brain is likely to be more intelligent than one with a nervous system, but no identifiable brain, what would you answer?
Blue, I asked you to PLEASE back up a whole list of your assertions, one of which is "Intelligence is relative."
There is an entire field dedicated to this area of research. Try the search terms "Animal. Intelligence." or "Insect. Intelligence."
Stop with the armchair biology and do some work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by bluegenes, posted 01-07-2008 8:00 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by sinequanon, posted 01-07-2008 3:48 PM molbiogirl has replied
 Message 120 by bluegenes, posted 01-07-2008 6:12 PM molbiogirl has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 118 of 147 (446934)
01-07-2008 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by molbiogirl
01-07-2008 3:11 PM


A bit OT, but ...
We have reams of data about how the brain works.
Sure. But it is mostly not the kind of data that would help us understand cognition.
And within 5 years we will have a "theory of the mind".
I hope you are right. However, I don't find anything in the literature that is even close. Even if an approximately correct theory were published tomorrow, it would probably take more than 5 years of argument before there could be any consensus that it was a good theory.

Let's end the political smears

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by molbiogirl, posted 01-07-2008 3:11 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by molbiogirl, posted 01-07-2008 6:17 PM nwr has replied

  
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 119 of 147 (446937)
01-07-2008 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by molbiogirl
01-07-2008 3:31 PM


Blatant misquote:
molbiogirl writes:
It's a far cry from "We know nothing." which is Sin's stance.
Misrepresentation:
molbiogirl writes:
Like Sin mentioned, it probably uses fuzzy logic.
It is pointless to try to debate against dishonesty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by molbiogirl, posted 01-07-2008 3:31 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by molbiogirl, posted 01-07-2008 6:26 PM sinequanon has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 120 of 147 (446998)
01-07-2008 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by molbiogirl
01-07-2008 3:31 PM


molbiogirl writes:
Blue, that's not improvisation.
The program runs like this. "Tug on the web. Check it out. Uh oh. Line missing. Find gap. Fix gap. Done."
Plus "assess degree of damage, and decide whether repairs worth while." Plus "fix gap or tighten other thread to compensate, decide".
Damn good "program", and if neurological "programs" don't combine to make intelligence, what does?
There isn't a Platonic ideal of "The Web" in a spiders brain. It's a program that takes a simple set of inputs and cranks out an answer. Like Sin mentioned, it probably uses fuzzy logic.
I'll go for that. Fuzzy logical spiders = fuzzily intelligent spiders.
I spent time (briefly) in the Entomology Dept. so I know that's not true.
But not in the English department. I said "I haven't found anything yet that will help us either way on the question [are spiders intelligent]", not that there isn't anything. True, I assure you, but I've still got a lot of looking to do, and thanks for the search tips.
Blue, I asked you to PLEASE back up a whole list of your assertions, one of which is "Intelligence is relative."
I said the adjective "intelligent" is used relatively, and it is, and I gave examples. I'll look seriously at your list when you:
(a)Provide the long awaited consensus scientific usage of the word "intelligent" and
(b)Explain how an animal which can gain knowledge and act on it, and which is capable of logic (albeit fuzzy) is not intelligent and
(c)Explain why you attribute the behaviour of spiders to inbuilt neurological programs of some kind, but not the behaviour of our own species. If they're automatons, why aren't we just far more complex automatons, and please don't say that we've got souls.
Stop with the armchair biology and do some work.
I don't think that someone who thinks that the capacity for logic isn't a form of intelligence is in a position to lecture to others, frankly, but thanks again for the search tips.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by molbiogirl, posted 01-07-2008 3:31 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by molbiogirl, posted 01-07-2008 6:50 PM bluegenes has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024