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
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 16 of 147 (445425)
01-02-2008 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by sinequanon
01-02-2008 4:23 AM


sine writes:
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.
I suppose you could see it that way. I'd say you are either purposely dodging my point or you just don't get it.
According to Kant, intelligence (or free will) depends on your ability to go against what is in your immediate need or option.
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.
It seems like you're just trying to dodge my point by mucking up my example.
Kant argues that it's the ability to go against one's instinct, or if you'd like the ability to choose options that would fulfill less of your immediate needs.
The experiment would fail because I would have a reason, i.e proving that I need not eat.
Again, you seem to be desperately trying to dodge my point by mucking up my example. And for whatever reason I blindly went along with your attempt.
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.
It's a bit like asking me if I am incapable of choosing to have no choice.
Point taken. Let me rephrase the question. Are you absolutely incapable of choosing not to eat even when you are starving.
Now, remember that I don't agree with Kant on this point. I'm just using a christian creationist's argument against your argument that instinct = intelligence. Obviously, christians, particularly christian creationists, don't agree with this view.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by sinequanon, posted 01-02-2008 4:23 AM sinequanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by sinequanon, posted 01-02-2008 5:49 PM Taz has replied

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


Message 17 of 147 (445509)
01-02-2008 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by sinequanon
01-02-2008 4:33 AM


A proper analogy would be: Humans can change the way in which they find food. Spiders can't.
Wow. Way to miss the point by a mile.
Humans can change their way of finding food right now. In an instant.
Spiders cannot.
Instinct is a fixed pattern of behavior that is inherited.
wiki writes:
Instinct must:
a) be automatic
b) be irresistible
c) occur at some point in development
d) be triggered by some event in the environment
e) occur in every member of the species
f) be unmodifiable
g) govern behavior for which the organism needs no training
Clearly, this is true of spiders.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by sinequanon, posted 01-02-2008 4:33 AM sinequanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by sinequanon, posted 01-02-2008 5:59 PM molbiogirl 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

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


Message 20 of 147 (445559)
01-02-2008 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by sinequanon
01-02-2008 5:59 PM


You can instantly select any one of those gradually evolved methods, but instantly creating a new method is rare.
Horse piddle.
Biology evolves.
Behavior does not.
You are arguing that a spider building a web is an automatic process?
You've got my definition of instinct.
Rebuttal?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by sinequanon, posted 01-02-2008 5:59 PM sinequanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by sinequanon, posted 01-03-2008 11:04 AM molbiogirl has replied
 Message 24 by Quetzal, posted 01-03-2008 11:06 AM molbiogirl has replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 21 of 147 (445590)
01-03-2008 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by sinequanon
01-02-2008 5:49 PM


sine writes:
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.
And you're still missing my point, purposely or not. I think the only other person I've talked to that purposely misses my points more is Ringo...
Are you saying that in such a situation you are absolutely incapable of choosing to prevent yourself from eating?
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.
Again, you are mucking up my example.
Suppose that you have been stranded on an island for a while. Food becomes a scarcity that cannot be ignored. Given the oportunity to eat food, are you telling me that you are absolutely incapable of simply choosing not to eat the food?
Answer the question. Stop stalling.
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.
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.
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".
Again, you're mucking up the example. Answer the question directly. Are you absolutely incapable of simply choosing not to eat when you are starving and food is readily available? Answer the question. Stop dodging.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by sinequanon, posted 01-02-2008 5:49 PM sinequanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by ringo, posted 01-03-2008 12:40 AM Taz has replied
 Message 26 by sinequanon, posted 01-03-2008 11:48 AM Taz has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 22 of 147 (445594)
01-03-2008 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Taz
01-03-2008 12:16 AM


Taz writes:
I think the only other person I've talked to that purposely misses my points more is Ringo...
Thanks for thinking of me.
When somebody misses your point, maybe you should take it as an oppurtunity to think your position through more thoroughly and express yourself more clearly.
Are spiders capable of learning? Can you train a spider to make a different kind of web? Can you teach a spider to go through a maze?

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Taz, posted 01-03-2008 12:16 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Taz, posted 01-03-2008 11:13 AM ringo 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

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 24 of 147 (445661)
01-03-2008 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by molbiogirl
01-02-2008 10:32 PM


I'm not entirely sure I agree with this. It might be simply a problem of to concise an answer. There appear to be a number of difficulties with the way you've put things. A bit of amplification may be in order.
Biology evolves.
Behavior does not.
Behavior most assuredly does change, except for genetically determined, hard-wired, instinctive and inherited behaviors (such as the spider web pattern). However, even here, we are likely discussing "no change over an individual lifespan" rather than "no change period". Given long-term environmental changes, etc, or changes in other selection pressures, such inherited behaviors can also "evolve" even in a relatively short (a few generations in some cases with short-lived fast-reproducing organisms) time span.
I think I know what you meant, but you may be opening up a can of worms by the way you went about it.

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 29 by molbiogirl, posted 01-04-2008 10:56 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 25 of 147 (445665)
01-03-2008 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by ringo
01-03-2008 12:40 AM


Ringo writes:
Are spiders capable of learning? Can you train a spider to make a different kind of web? Can you teach a spider to go through a maze?
I'm not saying spiders are completely unintelligent. I've said many times now, that intelligence (or free will) could be measured by one's ability to act against one's instinct. A dog obviously has some intelligence. So do dolphines. Both of these creatures we can teach and train well. But ultimately, compared to humans there are limits to what they can and cannot do.
Speaking as a former arachnid collector (had to give up the hobby when I married my wife!) I once had almost a hundred 8 legged freaks running around. Especially with the more agressive tarantulas, I was able to calm some of them down and stopped attacking me on impulse. Still, that was about the only thing I could do with them. I also had a pet iquana. Again, the only thing that I was able to get him to do... or not do was try to bite my finger off everytime I held him.
Others can correct me on this, but it seems like the further away you get from mammal, specifically primates, on the evolutionary tree, the more dependent the creature is on its instincts.
When somebody misses your point, maybe you should take it as an oppurtunity to think your position through more thoroughly and express yourself more clearly.
Good point, except that you're forgetting that I'm all knowing. I have to be right all the time. If I am ever wrong, existence as we know it would be undone.
PS - Of course the real argument is that instinct does not equate to intelligence. If it is, perhaps we should just scratch the English language and start using something like Greek or Vietnamese?
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by ringo, posted 01-03-2008 12:40 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by ringo, posted 01-03-2008 11:51 AM Taz 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

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 27 of 147 (445682)
01-03-2008 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Taz
01-03-2008 11:13 AM


Taz writes:
Speaking as a former arachnid collector (had to give up the hobby when I married my wife!)....
I know. That's why I asked you instead of some know-nothing.
Speaking of iguanas, 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?
... you're forgetting that I'm all knowing.
I have a great memory for trivia. I can't remember anything useful.

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Taz, posted 01-03-2008 11:13 AM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Taz, posted 01-03-2008 2:11 PM ringo has not replied
 Message 112 by Larni, posted 01-07-2008 8:57 AM ringo has not replied

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3292 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 28 of 147 (445715)
01-03-2008 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by ringo
01-03-2008 11:51 AM


Ringo writes:
Speaking of iguanas, 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?
Speaking of that, I don't know. What I do know is that these creatures require a lot more time and attention than the regular pets like dogs and cats. A dog will constantly remind you that it's there (I have 3 dogs). A cat you can go for a week without knowing its there (I used to have cats). An iquana or tarantula you could go for a week without thinking about it, but there are severe consequences. The agression level increases exponentially as the time you ignore it increases. Personally, I wouldn't recommend either tarantula or iquana to anyone. I've heard of cases where the favorite pet tarantula panicked and attacked the owner sending him to the emergency room. I've also heard of cases where the pet iggy ends up biting off the owner's hands. I personally have a lot of patience and respect for animal so I take care of them accordingly.
Going back to training these guys, 2 of my dogs are beagles. For those of you who don't know much about dogs, beagles are famous for their resistance to dog training. They are very easy to get distracted. A regular beagle tend to follow its nose to the world's end. With that said, people often are amazed at how well behaved my beagles are. I don't ever have them on a leash anymore even when we're outside and taking a walk. They come when I tell them to. They jump into the car when I tell them to. They come inside the house when I tell them to. How did I do this? I used to spend 25 hours a day training them myself.
Years of working with animal have given me some up close and personal perspective into animal intelligence versus human intelligence.

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

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


Message 29 of 147 (446151)
01-04-2008 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Quetzal
01-03-2008 11:06 AM


Thanks, Q.
I was going for brevity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Quetzal, posted 01-03-2008 11:06 AM Quetzal has not replied

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


Message 30 of 147 (446152)
01-04-2008 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by sinequanon
01-03-2008 11:04 AM


Read the OP. There is no intrinsic difference between a spider building its web and a so-called 'intelligent process'.
Yes. There is.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by sinequanon, posted 01-03-2008 11:04 AM sinequanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by sinequanon, posted 01-05-2008 8:51 AM molbiogirl 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