Spiders are intelligent

If I can find one I will. So far I only relate activities anyone could observe.Another interesting observation is that only the smaller spiders build their webs on the window. I've noticed that when they get bigger and the web is of comparable size to a window, they build their webs in the open.(Funny, but at this point they also sit boldly in the centre of their web rather than the edge (great, big, fat things out in the open) and they don't seem to get picked off by birds! Even the cats seem to avoid walking through the webs.)

Yes.How would you determine intention in a spider, apart from subjectively?Spiders build webs (nearly) against windows. I have observed that the ratio of web area to window does not get to 50 per cent. Even though it would seem very convenient, I have never seen a web that filled a whole window. As was mentioned a web > 50 per cent of the window area would be counterproductive, and I have never seen it happen even though it would seem convenient. But webs the equivalent size can be seen in the open.Also, I observe the webs near the wing mirror of my car, tend to be next to, rather than over the mirror. So, I cannot see how the open space thing applies here. Also, there is just as much open space by the wheels for example, but I don't see webs there. Building a small web next to, rather than over, a small mirror greatly increases the effective catchment area, given the behaviour of bugs. Yes. The webs I observe are outside the window. Being see-through I am able to see from the inside. Enjoy. (Outside is not cleaned that regularly.) In any case, it is the same with humans. Our intelligent choices can have unintelligent aspects (choosing junk food is still an intelligent choice in the sense people are talking about it here). But then you'd expect to see some webs that span the whole window. I don't see any.

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. 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. 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.

Lovely rhetoric. Ever considered a career in politics?Nobody knows how cognition works let alone any method of quantifying it. 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. 'IN' refers to location. 'WITH' refers to form. The spider can fit its web inside an irregular and random geometry. 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.

Blatant misquote: Misrepresentation: It is pointless to try to debate against dishonesty.

We can leave people to assess your level of understanding and integrity from the above. Don't get Molbiogirl to build your house or even a wall. She probably doesn't know what a plumbline or spirit level is and your house won't be oriented using gravity! Message 116Oh, and by the way, where is your evidence that spiders use gravity to orient themselves when building a web? Link?Edited by sinequanon, : No reason given.

But the physical conditions were similar. Put a spider in a box. Why doesn't it build exactly the same web twice?Clearly the spider is able to find solutions to one problem that differ in some respects.However, in the repair case Message 117, Molbiogirl insists the damage must be the same not just similar.But, if the spider is able to distinguish between the 'similar' webs in the repair case, it is unreasonable to assume that it cannot distinguish between the 'similar' solutions for a web in the box. It is more reasonable to say it has found distinct solutions there as well. Molbiogirl is being inconsistent.

That is a one line answer Molbiogirl failed to give. This is the issue. What evidence have you that "it is very unlikely"?Perhaps your starting point is "all animal behaviour is intrinsically different unless shown to be similar", and mine is "all animal behaviour is intrinsically similar unless shown to be different". It would be fair enough to argue that there is no notion of intelligence attributable to fundamentals of behaviour in animals. However, if such a notion exists, and there is no evidence of fundamental difference in human or spider behaviour, then spiders are intelligent if humans are. (I know I can make a spider jump from quite a distance away)All perception can be interpreted as local. Sight in humans can be interpreted as processing responses of the retina. You have to factor in capacity for memory and relating and predicting responses, to assess concept.Sure, the tension of one fibre does not communicate the whole web in the same way as a glance may to a human. But even if tension really were the only factor it would not prevent a comprehensive concept of the web. Similarly, it is not unreasonable, to imagine a mole has a concept of its network of tunnels. Edited by sinequanon, : No reason given.

Could you please quote the relevant bit of the conclusion from your source.(I'm glad you now know that houses are oriented using gravity )

A lot of sense.The "spectrum of capabilities" is how I see it, too."Spiders are intelligent" makes sense when you consider intelligent as meaning "having the quality of intelligence to some unspecified extent", as opposed to not having it at all. i.e, it follows from "behaviourally got everything a human has got to some extent, however small"One reservation I have is that lack of demonstration of intelligence does not mean lack of intelligence. For example, our imagination outstrips our capacity to act. We do not communicate or act out the full intelligence of our imagination. Intelligence could be like a Rolls-Royce engine. But if you put it inside a three wheeler, what can it do? Or put the most cunning criminal behind bars - no more cunning.

I agree on intelligence being on a continuous scale. The separated paragraph is my own position, not intended to follow from yours. No problems. No need to apologise.