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: 13/17 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 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

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 32 of 147 (446261)
01-05-2008 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by sinequanon
01-05-2008 8:51 AM


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.
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.
Can you name a group of humans who, thru instinct, perform the same behavior exactly the same way (no exceptions) much as the spider does?
In fact, initially, spiders were divided into taxonomic categories based on web building behavior.
Spiders' behavior is rigid wrt to the way in which the female carries the cocoon, too.
If these aren't specific enough for you, how about their startle response instinct?
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).
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).
Speaking of definitions, you have yet to provide a definition of intelligence.
Please do so. One that is rigorous enough to stand up to scientific scrutiny.
Cites wouldn't hurt.
I excluded origin of behaviour in the OP, as I do not believe it measures intrinsic difference.
Instinct needs no training.
That's a fact.
Intelligence, on the other hand, oftentimes does.
Of course, we can clear this matter up once you provide your definition of intelligence.
If you were doing exactly what you have been trained to do, wouldn't your actions be automatic?
Again. This isn't a definition of intelligence. It is a definition of instinct. Which is why I chose to ask you:
Is this "intelligence"?
To answer your question. Automatic: Functioning in a predefined manner with a minimum of reprogrammability.
So the answer is: No.
So do so-called non-instinctive things. Human's eat, sleep, laugh, smile, walk, talk, etc. etc.
Actually, you're wrong.
Both language and laughter/smiling are thought to be instinctual, as they are automatic.
And before you argue that language must be taught, you don't want to open that can of worms. Steven Pinker's The Language Instinct is just a google away!
In other words, for a non-automatic process, isn't some component necessary that wasn't programmed?
I will answer this question after you've provided your definition of intelligence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by sinequanon, posted 01-05-2008 8:51 AM sinequanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by sinequanon, posted 01-05-2008 2:41 PM molbiogirl has replied
 Message 34 by bluegenes, posted 01-05-2008 2:48 PM molbiogirl has 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

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


Message 34 of 147 (446280)
01-05-2008 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by molbiogirl
01-05-2008 1:55 PM


molbiogirl writes:
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.
Can you name a group of humans who, thru instinct, perform the same behavior exactly the same way (no exceptions) much as the spider does?
But there aren't humans of different genus and family, are there.
We walk upright instinctively, and our close mammal relatives on all fours.

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 35 by molbiogirl, posted 01-05-2008 4:43 PM bluegenes has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 35 of 147 (446320)
01-05-2008 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by bluegenes
01-05-2008 2:48 PM


But there aren't humans of different genus and family, are there.
I know, Bluegenes. Which is why I said "group" of humans.
We walk upright instinctively, and our close mammal relatives on all fours.
Absolutely. Those without genetic defect, that is (handwalkers & cerebellar ataxia).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by bluegenes, posted 01-05-2008 2:48 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by bluegenes, posted 01-05-2008 5:31 PM molbiogirl has replied

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


Message 36 of 147 (446328)
01-05-2008 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by molbiogirl
01-05-2008 4:43 PM


molbiogirl writes:
I know, Bluegenes. Which is why I said "group" of humans.
I may have misunderstood, but it sounded to me as though you were pointing out, correctly, that different species of spiders make different kinds of webs, and asking for examples of similarly programmed behaviour in humans, so saying something like different primates instinctively walk in different ways, for example, seemed to me to fit the bill.
I think that sin's point in the O.P. is that we cannot define a point when instinctive behaviour becomes "intelligent" behaviour, and in a way, I agree with him. Our own behaviour could be described as entirely instinctive. We're just much more adaptable than spiders, and part of our programming is to be the world's most cultural animal. So it is natural and in accordance with our instincts to build up cultures by exchanging information (teaching our offspring stuff, etc) and when we end up building highly complex modern cities, it's our nature to do so.
That seems to make the word "intelligent" redundant, but it seems to me that it's just a word that's always used relatively. So we can say that mammals are more intelligent than reptiles, or that spiders are intelligent compared to bacteria, but we can also say things like "creationists show no intelligence", even though we've just established that mammals are intelligent, and creationists are mammals (of a kind).
I don't think we can measure nervous systems and things like adaptability to the point where we could say instinct stops at one point, and intelligence takes over.
So, to sum up, all animals do everything by instinct, and "intelligence" is best understood as a relative word, like "speed", and as not being something with a fixed value.
So whether or not spiders are intelligent depends on how we're using the word, and what we're relating them to, like tortoises being speedy compared to snails.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by molbiogirl, posted 01-05-2008 4:43 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by molbiogirl, posted 01-05-2008 5:59 PM bluegenes has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 37 of 147 (446330)
01-05-2008 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by sinequanon
01-05-2008 2:41 PM


YOU have to define BOTH instinct and intelligence and demonstrate they are real and have a real difference.
Wrong. In your OP you said:
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.
Therefore the burden is on YOU to define intelligence. That's the way it works around here. The person who introduces the idea has to explain the idea.
Define intelligence.
Define instinct.
Quit stalling.
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.
Spiders do not build identical webs, don't be ridiculous.
Orb weaving spiders build orbs, etc.
Being catagorised with the same name does not mean replica.
Quit putting words in my mouth. I never said "Spiders build exact replicas."
Is c) relevant to the your supposed difference between instinct and intelligence. If so, in what way?
Absolutely:
Instinct: inborn pattern of behavior often responsive to specific stimuli
Intelligence: the ability to comprehend; to understand and profit from experience
Note: neither of these definitions are scientific. Both are from a dictionary.
Rather, it's part of your definition.
No. These parameters are used in the scientific literature.
But that is not an intrinsic difference.
According to Merriam Webster, you are way off base.
Intrinsic:
1 a: belonging to the essential nature or constitution of a thing (the intrinsic worth of a gem) (the intrinsic brightness of a star)
b: being or relating to a semiconductor in which the concentration of charge carriers is characteristic of the material itself instead of the content of any impurities it contains
2 a: originating or due to causes within a body, organ, or part (an intrinsic metabolic disease)
b: originating and included wholly within an organ or part (intrinsic muscles)
You have to make your assessment on the nature of the processes, not their origins.
As NWR mentioned earlier, you need to define your terms.
But now you have introduced "nature of processes" as another confusing term. Unless you are able to give a clear definition of that, I don't see how it helps.
Again. Since you introduced the idea, the burden is on YOU to define your terms.
Are you saying that a trained person is not trained to act in a predefined manner?
Typical creo. Ignore half the definition.
Automatic: Functioning in a predefined manner with a minimum of reprogrammability.
So, when you smile, Molbiogirl, it is automatic, irresistible and unmodifiable?
Smiling is found in all human cultures. Smiling is found in our close cousins (chimps/gorillas/baboons/etc.)
Smiling is instinctual.
I await YOUR definition as you are the one claiming it is real and distinct from other behaviour.
Again. Protocol demands that you define the term intelligence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by sinequanon, posted 01-05-2008 2:41 PM sinequanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by sinequanon, posted 01-05-2008 6:22 PM molbiogirl has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 38 of 147 (446332)
01-05-2008 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by bluegenes
01-05-2008 5:31 PM


I think that sin's point in the O.P. is that we cannot define a point when instinctive behaviour becomes "intelligent" behaviour, and in a way, I agree with him.
I would disagree.
Spiders cannot be trained to spin a different sort of web.
Humans can be trained to do nearly everything differently. Even those traits that can be said to be instinctual can be ignored (as Taz pointed out).
A case could be made that there are traits that cannot be altered; the inborn capacity for language, for example.
A child exposed to language picks up language. There isn't much of anything you can do prevent that. Aside from complete isolation (Genie, etc.).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by bluegenes, posted 01-05-2008 5:31 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by bluegenes, posted 01-05-2008 7:20 PM molbiogirl 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

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 40 of 147 (446338)
01-05-2008 6:30 PM


An interesting idea for an OP
Thanks for the thoughts everyone, and thanks for the OP. I read an article by Dan Dennett which addressed the difference between human creativity and animal instinct. The conclusion, to simplify, is that there is important difference only in magnitude.
quote:
Weaver birds create intricate nests; sculptors and other artists and artisans also create intricate, ingenious constructions out of similar materials. The products may look similar, and outwardly the creative processes that create those processes may look similar, but there are surely large and important differences between them. What are they, and how important are they? The weaverbird nestmaking is ”instinctual,’ and ”controlled by the genes’ some would say, but we know that this is a crude approximation of a more interesting truth, involving an intricate interplay between genetic variation, long-term developmental and environmental interaction and short-term environmental variation-in opportunities and materials accessible at the time of nest building. And on the side of the human creator, a similarly complex story must be told. Genes play some role surely (think of the likelihood of heritable differences in musical aptitude, for instance), but so do both long-term and short-term environmental interactions. The myth of the artist “blessed” by a spark of ”divine genius’ is even cruder and more distorted than the myth of the birdnest as a simple product of a gene-as if it were a protein.
quote:
Call any such product of earlier R and D a crane, and distinguish it from what Darwinism says does not happen: skyhooks (Dennett 1995). Skyhooks, like manna from heaven, would be miracles, and if we posit a skyhook anywhere in our ”explanation’ of creativity, we have in fact conceded defeat.
What, then, is a mind? The Darwinian answer is straightforward. A mind is a crane, made of cranes, made of cranes, a mechanism of not quite unimaginable complexity that can clamber through Design Space at a giddy-but not miraculously giddy-pace, thanks to all the earlier R and D, from all sources, that it exploits.
quote:
The cranes of human culture didn’t just open up Design Space; they opened up perspectives on Design Space that permitted ”directed’ mutation, foresighted mutation, reflective mutation, both in cultural and, most recently, genetic innovation... Does a Darwinian gloss actually supplement or adjust the traditional intellectualist ways of thinking? I think it does, because without the steady pressure of the Darwinian ”strange inversion of reasoning,’ it is all too tempting to revert to the old essentialist, Cartesian perspectives. For instance, there is always the temptation, often succumbed to, to establish ”principled’ boundaries, or to erect a polar contrast between insightful and blind processes of search, as we saw in the unsupportable assertion that Kasparov’s methods are fundamentally unlike Deep Blue’s. If Deep Blue’s methods are ultimately ”blind and mechanical,’ then so, ultimately, are Kasparov’s-his neurons are as blind and mechanical as any circuit board.
I don't think I have much to add to that. I would say that where instinct becomes intelligence is a subjective one, which has utility in communication but when examined closely simply confuses the issue. However, I think a useful starting point would be differentiating (as best as possible) behaviours which are dominated by phenotypical constraints (ie the behaviour is significantly hardcoded and only partially based on experience) from behaviours which are learned predominantly through experience (thus learning itself is instinctual, but perhaps engaging in behaviour based on learned things is the beginning of intelligence). That is to say, perhaps we can differentiate instinct from intelligence by the complexity of the 'software' that is able to be 'loaded' onto the 'hardware'.
Right now, quantifying that is impossible, but I think it is reasonable to consider that spiders are somewhere over towards the extreme edge of 'instinct' and that humans represent the closest known example of something to the 'intelligence' edge.

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by bluegenes, posted 01-05-2008 7:35 PM Modulous has not replied

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


Message 41 of 147 (446342)
01-05-2008 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by molbiogirl
01-05-2008 5:59 PM


molbiogirl writes:
A case could be made that there are traits that cannot be altered; the inborn capacity for language, for example.
What about the inborn capacity to learn, the inborn adaptability, and the inborn tendency to communicate our knowledge to each other? At base, it all comes down to instinct. Try being completely non-curious, and you'll find that you can't stop being curious about some things, because homo sapiens is instinctively curious.
Our instincts (and our brains) may be thousands of times more complex than those of a spider, but we only differ ultimately in that degree of complexity.
Because we're the most cultural and adaptable animal that's ever existed doesn't mean we're functioning on a different system from the others.
That's why I say that intelligence is a term that has to be used relatively. "Spiders are Intelligent", the thread title, is neither true nor false. A useful way of employing the word "intelligent" would be saying that we're much more intelligent than they are.
Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by molbiogirl, posted 01-05-2008 5:59 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by molbiogirl, posted 01-05-2008 9:56 PM bluegenes has replied

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


Message 42 of 147 (446343)
01-05-2008 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Modulous
01-05-2008 6:30 PM


Re: An interesting idea for an OP
Modulous (simplifying Dennet) writes:
The conclusion, to simplify, is that there is important difference only in magnitude.
I agree with Dennet. It's a matter of degree.
That is to say, perhaps we can differentiate instinct from intelligence by the complexity of the 'software' that is able to be 'loaded' onto the 'hardware'.
Right now, quantifying that is impossible,....
Impossible, yes. And I suspect it will always be impossible to define a degree of complexity where something called intelligence starts, which is why I say that it's a relative word, like speed, and can be used in lots of different ways.
Aren't the I.D. folks experts on both intelligence and complexity?
Maybe they can help us here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Modulous, posted 01-05-2008 6:30 PM Modulous has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 43 of 147 (446358)
01-05-2008 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by sinequanon
01-05-2008 6:22 PM


Sin is avoiding an inconvenient question.
Define intelligence.
Define instinct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by sinequanon, posted 01-05-2008 6:22 PM sinequanon has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 44 of 147 (446366)
01-05-2008 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by bluegenes
01-05-2008 7:20 PM


What about the inborn capacity to learn, the inborn adaptability, and the inborn tendency to communicate our knowledge to each other?
In a casual sense, any repeated behavior can be called instinct.
In a casual sense, any behavior for which there is a strong innate component can be called instinct.
Learning and adaptability are instincts in that limited use of the term.
In fact, at the beginning of the 20th century, the scientific literature had references to over 4000 human instincts.
If, however, one uses the definition I provided earlier:
wiki writes:
If these criteria are used in a rigorous scientific manner, application of the term "instinct" cannot be used in reference to human behavior. When terms, such as mothering, territoriality, eating, mating, and so on, are used to denote human behavior they are seen to not meet the criteria listed above. In comparison to animal behavior such as hibernation, migration, nest building, mating and so on that are clearly instinctual, no human behavior meets the necessary criteria. In other words, under this definition, there are no human instincts.
I wouldn't draw the line that hard and fast. I would say that mothering, territoriality, eating, mating, learning, and adaptability are not human instincts since they don't meet the criteria. But that some traits (language) do fit the criteria.
Our instincts (and our brains) may be thousands of times more complex than those of a spider, but we only differ ultimately in that degree of complexity.
Complexity doesn't explain the phenomenon, tho.
And, since we are about 5 years away from a theory of the mind, there isn't an explanation to be had at present.
Because we're the most cultural and adaptable animal that's ever existed doesn't mean we're functioning on a different system from the others.
That's a convenient way of looking at things, but I disagree.
As would most neurobiologists.
It is proposed that mirror neurons and the functional mechanism they underpin, embodied simulation, can ground within a unitary neurophysiological explanatory framework important aspects of human social cognition. In particular, the main focus is on language, here conceived according to a neurophenomenological perspective, grounding meaning on the social experience of action. A neurophysiological hypothesis - the "neural exploitation hypothesis" - is introduced to explain how key aspects of human social cognition are underpinned by brain mechanisms originally evolved for sensorimotor integration.
Mirror neurons and the social nature of language: The neural exploitation hypothesis
Social Neuroscience 2007 v3 p. 179-222
There is a physical difference in the mechanisms. The systems are not the same.
That's why I say that intelligence is a term that has to be used relatively.
Again. Neuroscience begs to differ.
Just look at the title of this paper:
The Parieto-Frontal Integration Theory (P-FIT) of intelligence: Converging neuroimaging evidence
Behavioral and Brain Sciences (2007), 30:166-167
If intelligence can be shown to inhabit an area of the brain that spiders just don't have, how can spiders be intelligent?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by bluegenes, posted 01-05-2008 7:20 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by bluegenes, posted 01-06-2008 7:45 AM molbiogirl has replied

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


Message 45 of 147 (446402)
01-06-2008 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by molbiogirl
01-05-2008 9:56 PM


molbiogirl writes:
I wouldn't draw the line that hard and fast.
Me neither.
I think that where we differ is that you're using a much tighter definition of the word "intelligence". When you say:
Complexity doesn't explain the phenomenon, tho.
Presumably the phenomenon is intelligence, which, by one of many definitions is:
American Heritage Dictionary
Intelligence n.
(a)The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.
Do spiders have this? Quite likely, the answer is yes.
That's a convenient way of looking at things, but I disagree.
As would most neurobiologists.
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.
There is a physical difference in the mechanisms. The systems are not the same.
Of course there are massive differences between our brains and those of spiders, and the system is not the same in that sense. What I meant by us being in the same system is the overall "system" of having evolved intelligence in order to deal with our environment.
mol writes:
bluegenes writes:
That's why I say that intelligence is a term that has to be used relatively.
Again. Neuroscience begs to differ.
I read the abstract of the paper you mentioned. It's not that they differ, merely that they're concerned with human intelligence, which is not all intelligence.
If intelligence can be shown to inhabit an area of the brain that spiders just don't have, how can spiders be intelligent?
Again, you're narrowing the meaning of intelligence to something you might attribute only to humans, or perhaps just to "higher" mammals.
There's no reason to do so.
There's a species of spider that makes beautiful webs in my garden. Sometimes they'll keep a web going for days, repairing minor damage. When there's too much damage, they'll abandon the web, and make another one. Every web is different, as they're all hung between different plants/trees, and all damage is different, so their instincts have to provide them with the ability to do damage assessment in each individual case, and decide whether the web is worth repairing, or whether it's time to move on.
We can see them as entirely instinctive creatures with instinctive behaviour that gives an impression of intelligence, but on a much grander scale, we could see ourselves in the same way.
As Dennett says in the piece Modulous quotes above:
quote:
A mind is a crane, made of cranes, made of cranes,...
We just have a lot more cranes on top of cranes than spiders.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by molbiogirl, posted 01-05-2008 9:56 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by sinequanon, posted 01-06-2008 9:47 AM bluegenes has not replied
 Message 54 by molbiogirl, posted 01-06-2008 3:41 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