Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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
sinequanon
Member (Idle past 2864 days)
Posts: 331
Joined: 12-17-2007


Message 1 of 147 (444674)
12-30-2007 10:13 AM


In order to determine if and where intelligence impacts the development of life forms we must first have a consistent understanding of what intelligence is.
Current science differentiates intrinsically between instinct and intelligence. The scientific basis for this distinction does not appear to be very clear or consistent.
I believe that there is no proven intrinsic difference between instinct and intelligence.
By an intrinsic difference I mean a difference in the nature of their processes (and, e.g, not a difference in their supposed origins).
I would like to debate this with reference to a specific central example of a spider building a web.
I assert that this is an intelligent process.
For those of you who assert that it is an intrinsically different process called 'instinct', please present evidence of the intrinsic difference.
(Not for debate, but I actually believe that the supposed distinction arises only as a result of human desire for philosophical separation from animals. As such, it is a hang over from the biblical notion of man being made special by God and having dominion over the creatures).
I do not wish to discuss whether or not this intelligence is divine. However, I do propose that this topic goes in the Intelligent Design Forum.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by AdminNosy, posted 01-01-2008 11:53 AM sinequanon has replied
 Message 7 by Taz, posted 01-01-2008 2:32 PM sinequanon has replied
 Message 9 by nwr, posted 01-01-2008 3:59 PM sinequanon has not replied

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


Message 2 of 147 (445143)
01-01-2008 10:33 AM


Why no feedback?
Bump
Administrators, is my proposal being ignored?
Edited by sinequanon, : No reason given.

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


Message 4 of 147 (445192)
01-01-2008 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by AdminNosy
01-01-2008 11:53 AM


Re: What forum?
Miscellaneous topics would be OK, I suppose.
However, I think it would be fair to say, "the topic of ID as it is misused today". Design + intelligence = intelligent design. I think the hijacking of the term is being condoned by scientists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by AdminNosy, posted 01-01-2008 11:53 AM AdminNosy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by AdminNosy, posted 01-01-2008 2:21 PM sinequanon has not replied

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


Message 8 of 147 (445238)
01-01-2008 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Taz
01-01-2008 2:32 PM


If other choices are available, like mate, or find water, or find shelter etc., then the racoon may not take the food.
Similarly, if a hungry human refused food it would be because of some preference. Why else would you refuse food when you are hungry?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Taz, posted 01-01-2008 2:32 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Taz, posted 01-01-2008 6:21 PM sinequanon has replied

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


Message 11 of 147 (445314)
01-01-2008 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Taz
01-01-2008 6:21 PM


"Going to find Allah" is a choice.
Try answering the question. Name something that YOU do without reason.
If I am hungry and I choose not to eat it is because I have made a choice to do something else.
A webbing spider's instinct is to create a web in a particular pattern. It doesn't have a choice. A webbing spider can't just one day decide to turn into a hunting spider. It is forever trapped in its own instinctual behavior.
You can't just one day start to live in water like a fish. As with the webbing spider, you are not equipped for the change.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Taz, posted 01-01-2008 6:21 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Taz, posted 01-01-2008 7:34 PM sinequanon has replied
 Message 13 by molbiogirl, posted 01-01-2008 7:40 PM sinequanon has replied

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


Message 14 of 147 (445397)
01-02-2008 4:23 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Taz
01-01-2008 7:34 PM


Any number of things. I just stood up and sat down again on my chair. There was absolutely no reason for me to do that. I just looked up to the ceiling. There was no reason for me to do that.
I'd say the reason you did it was to try to prove your point, thereby failing. But, as always with such examples, you are better placed to know (just like someone who insists he saw a ghost. )
Answer the question. Are you absolutely incapable of simply choosing to not eat when you are hungry? Try it and tell me if you are capable of simply choosing not to eat or not.
The experiment would fail because I would have a reason, i.e proving that I need not eat.
It's a bit like asking me if I am incapable of choosing to have no choice. The question itself is a contradiction. My actions are defined by what I do, not by what I don't do. There are an infinite number of things that I don't do. But unless incapacitated, I am always doing something, and it is always a choice I have made.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Taz, posted 01-01-2008 7:34 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Taz, posted 01-02-2008 11:03 AM sinequanon has replied

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


Message 15 of 147 (445399)
01-02-2008 4:33 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by molbiogirl
01-01-2008 7:40 PM


I don't know the history of scuba diving equipment but I don't think it was invented in a day. All you can actually do is make small adaptations to behaviours and capabalities that humans evolved over a stretch of time. Spiders are also able to change their habits otherwise they could not have adapted into the hundreds of various types.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by molbiogirl, posted 01-01-2008 7:40 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by molbiogirl, posted 01-02-2008 5:43 PM sinequanon has replied

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


Message 18 of 147 (445510)
01-02-2008 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Taz
01-02-2008 11:03 AM


Let's go back to the racoon. It hasn't eaten in days. It's starving. There's food right there. There is no danger that it can see or sense. A person in such a situation could, for whatever reason, choose not to eat and continue to starve. But for the racoon, I highly doubt that mating overrides its need for survival.
All you seem to be highlighting here is the fact that a raccoon's priorities are different from a human's priorities. As a human you may be conditioned to believe that your "starvation" is temporary. But if you were stranded on a desert island and you'd found your first meal in days, there would have to be a rather compelling reason to divert you from eating, especially if there was no guarantee that this opportunity to eat would last.
Kant's point wasn't to pursue other options or non-options. It's going against your survival instinct. The level of intelligence can be measured by how much one (person or animal) can resist one's instinct.
I am sure you are not lauding suicidal tendencies as "intelligence". So, I guess you are saying that, in a given situation, an intelligent creature is able to select an option that is not optimal for survival. That, of course, is different from rejecting an option that is critical for survival.
When the raccoon is endures enforced hunger it senses that food is hard to come by, and so eating becomes critical. This is not necessarily so for a human. Usually for us, eating when hungry is merely optimal for survival. So your example does not compare like with like.
A flock of sheep in a non-critical situation on a hillside don't all engage in the same activity. They make various choices, some of which are therefore not optimal for survival.
Point taken. Let me rephrase the question. Are you absolutely incapable of choosing not to eat even when you are starving.
Even if I were to engage in some form of trancendental meditation with a blank sheet of paper, I would still be doing something. Doing nothing is not a choice. "Not eating" is not the choice. Doing something in preference to eating is a choice.
Perhaps a better question would be, "if you were starving would you ever choose to pull faces in the mirror instead of eat".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Taz, posted 01-02-2008 11:03 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Taz, posted 01-03-2008 12:16 AM sinequanon has replied

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


Message 19 of 147 (445513)
01-02-2008 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by molbiogirl
01-02-2008 5:43 PM


Humans can change their way of finding food right now. In an instant.
Spiders cannot.
No. Humans have gradually evolved several ways of finding food. You can instantly select any one of those gradually evolved methods, but instantly creating a new method is rare.
Clearly, this is true of spiders.
You are arguing that a spider building a web is an automatic process?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by molbiogirl, posted 01-02-2008 5:43 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by molbiogirl, posted 01-02-2008 10:32 PM sinequanon has replied

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


Message 23 of 147 (445659)
01-03-2008 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by molbiogirl
01-02-2008 10:32 PM


Biology evolves.
Behavior does not.
Difference of opinion. I say behaviour evolves.
You've got my definition of instinct.
Rebuttal?
Read the OP. There is no intrinsic difference between a spider building its web and a so-called 'intelligent process'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by molbiogirl, posted 01-02-2008 10:32 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by molbiogirl, posted 01-04-2008 11:01 PM sinequanon has replied

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


Message 26 of 147 (445681)
01-03-2008 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Taz
01-03-2008 12:16 AM


All this demonstrates is that they have multiple instinctual reactions to the same situation and different sheeps may react differently within certain boundaries of their preprogrammed instincts.
I am looking for an intrinsic difference between instinct and intelligence. So you have to explain why you think humans making choices is "intelligence", and sheep making choices is "preprogrammed instinct". So far, it just looks like bias, however forgivable.
Are you saying that in such a situation you are absolutely incapable of choosing to prevent yourself from eating?
It is not a straight question, but I will answer it and show you why.
If you are asking if I am capable, in theory, of "preventing myself from eating" in the "understood" situation, I can give you the answer "yes". I can propound such a theory. I can also propound such a theory for a spider. Neither is much use unless we observe what actually happens in practice.
If you are asking if, in practice, I actually would ever "preventing myself from eating" in the "understood" situation, the answer is "no", also same as spider.
You see? You are trying to create this notion of "capability" that need never be actually demonstrated in practice. That way you can arbitrarily attribute the capability in whatever way takes your fancy.
There is another problem with your question. You are trying to define choice with specific reference to just one thing. I may have to demonstrate the problem with that later, but I'll leave it there for now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Taz, posted 01-03-2008 12:16 AM Taz has not replied

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


Message 31 of 147 (446216)
01-05-2008 8:51 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by molbiogirl
01-04-2008 11:01 PM


Unless, of course, you think that Homo sapiens' behavior is...
a) automatic
b) irresistible
c) must be triggered by some event in the environment
d) occurs in every member of the species
e) unmodifiable
f) governs behavior for which the organism needs no training
Is that your definition of intelligence?
(No, and neither have I accepted your assertion that they describe a spider's behaviour).
a), b), e)
To prove we would need to observe that repeating the same conditions causes the same behaviour to be triggered and repeated. I have seen no evidence that, given a repeated situation, a spider compulsively builds a replica web, with each strand in the corresponding place. Please provide this evidence.
c)
An event that has no natural cause, either has no cause or a supernatural cause. Please clarify which of these c) is referring to. (i.e what alternative c) envisages for an intelligent process).
d)
So do so-called non-instinctive things. Human's eat, sleep, laugh, smile, walk, talk, etc. etc.
f)
I excluded origin of behaviour in the OP, as I do not believe it measures intrinsic difference. It's like defining a particular wine as 'good' based on knowning its vintage, then possibly coming to a different conclusion in a blind tasting.
I also find f) at odds with a). If you were doing exactly what you have been trained to do, wouldn't your actions be automatic? In other words, for a non-automatic process, isn't some component necessary that wasn't programmed?
Edited by sinequanon, : Correcting assignment of e) and f) in my post
Edited by sinequanon, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by molbiogirl, posted 01-04-2008 11:01 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by molbiogirl, posted 01-05-2008 1:55 PM sinequanon has replied
 Message 113 by Larni, posted 01-07-2008 9:11 AM sinequanon has not replied

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


Message 33 of 147 (446275)
01-05-2008 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by molbiogirl
01-05-2008 1:55 PM


Molbiogirl appalling logic throughout.
Firstly, I am saying there is no intrinsic difference - that the categories are spurious. I can't be expected to define a category of behaviour that I am saying is not real. YOU have to define BOTH instinct and intelligence and demonstrate they are real and have a real difference.
At the level of genus and family, spider behavior is rigid wrt to web forms. All members of Argiodae build orbwebs (no exceptions), all members of Lycosidae carry the cocoon attached to their spinnerets, etc.
Good try. Now answer my point and supply the evidence - I have seen no evidence that, given a repeated situation, a spider compulsively builds a replica web, with each strand in the corresponding place. Please provide this evidence.
Being catagorised with the same name does not mean replica. Humans build houses. They are called houses but they are not all the same.
That is not a definition of intelligence. It is a definition of instinct. So it doesn't make any sense for me to clarify (c).
Is c) relevant to the your supposed difference between instinct and intelligence. If so, in what way?
Instinct needs no training.
That's a fact.
Rather, it's part of your definition. A spider builds a web without training may be a fact. But that is not an intrinsic difference.
You have to make your assessment on the nature of the processes, not their origins. If you couldn't tell the difference between how a human solves a problem and how a computer solves it, then there would be no intrinsic difference in the methods despite their origins.
To answer your question. Automatic: Functioning in a predefined manner with a minimum of reprogrammability.
So the answer is: No.
Are you saying that a trained person is not trained to act in a predefined manner?
Both language and laughter/smiling are thought to be instinctual, as they are automatic.
So, when you smile, Molbiogirl, it is automatic, irresistible and unmodifiable?
I will answer this question after you've provided your definition of intelligence.
I await YOUR definition as you are the one claiming it is real and distinct from other behaviour.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by molbiogirl, posted 01-05-2008 1:55 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by molbiogirl, posted 01-05-2008 5:51 PM sinequanon has replied

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


Message 39 of 147 (446335)
01-05-2008 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by molbiogirl
01-05-2008 5:51 PM


You'll have to up the logic, Molbiogirl, in order for your argument to be sensible.
I am querying the meaning of the terms 'intelligence' and 'instinct'. I am asking those who believe that they represent separate categories of behaviour to define them in a consistent way that can be demonstrated. Asking me to define them for you is a bit ridiculous, as I don't believe any such categorisation exists.
I ask you a question about training, and instead of answering the question you give me a definition of 'automatic'.
As you failed to answer the question I will assume you think people can be trained to do what they haven't been trained to do.
Then your answer to this question:-
So, when you smile, Molbiogirl, it is automatic, irresistible and unmodifiable?
...is this!
Smiling is found in all human cultures. Smiling is found in our close cousins (chimps/gorillas/baboons/etc.)
Smiling is instinctual.
What was wrong with 'yes' or 'no'? Would it have made your argument look foolish?
If your next post is as desperate as your previous one, I'll put you out of your misery and leave it at that!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by molbiogirl, posted 01-05-2008 5:51 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by molbiogirl, posted 01-05-2008 9:26 PM sinequanon has not replied

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


Message 46 of 147 (446420)
01-06-2008 9:47 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by bluegenes
01-06-2008 7:45 AM


Spider can learn to build a web in weightless environment
Neurobiologists aren't experts at defining words, are they. And would most agree that spiders can't learn from experience? If a pet spider can learn not to be afraid of its owner, and not to react as it would in the wild, as I think someone suggested further up the thread, then doesn't that show a capacity to acquire and apply knowledge? And if young spiders can be shown to learn from errors in web building, as birds do when building their first nests, then they appear to fit that basic definition.
I recall an article about a spider that was taken into space to see how it coped with weightlessness. It's initial attempts at building a web were poor, but within 3 days it built a normal web although the silk was woven finer. (Although the article did not mention the reason, it could be because a lighter duty web is sufficient in a weightless environment).
This certainly demonstrates adaptability in the short term, and adds to the evidence of the spider being capable of a comprehensive target, rather than a just a complex outcome arising from a string of simple automatic actions. A program that was written to cope with a fixed input value (in this case gravity) would normal fail if the input value was changed. This would suggest web building is more than programmed response.
Edited by sinequanon, : Added subtitle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by bluegenes, posted 01-06-2008 7:45 AM bluegenes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by jar, posted 01-06-2008 9:54 AM sinequanon 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