Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,810 Year: 3,067/9,624 Month: 912/1,588 Week: 95/223 Day: 6/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Spiders are intelligent
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 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

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 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 2641 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

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


Message 121 of 147 (446999)
01-07-2008 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by nwr
01-07-2008 3:44 PM


Re: A bit OT, but ...
If you are really interested, a TED speaker gave a brilliant talk on cognition.
Jeff Hawkins: How brain science will change computing | TED Talk
Jeff Hawkins. Redwood Center for Theoretical Neuroscience in Berkeley, California.
Sure. But it is mostly not the kind of data that would help us understand cognition.
I disagree. Strongly. But it is OT.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by nwr, posted 01-07-2008 3:44 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by nwr, posted 01-07-2008 7:15 PM molbiogirl has replied

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


Message 122 of 147 (447000)
01-07-2008 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by sinequanon
01-07-2008 3:48 PM


It is pointless to try to debate against dishonesty.
No. It is pointless to try and debate a coward who won't define terms used in his OP.
Message 107.
You could also use fuzzy logic and neural networks to model movement of people in an airport.
You compared modeling crowds in an airport to spiders.
Blatant misquote:
molbiogirl writes:
It's a far cry from "We know nothing." which is Sin's stance.
It wasn't a quote. If I quote you, I will use a quote box. I used quotation marks. I also used quotations marks to indicate what a spider "thinks". Do you think I misquoted the spider?
From Message 107.
Sin writes:
Nobody knows how cognition works let alone any method of quantifying it.
From Message 109.
Sin writes:
Nobody knows how cognition works let alone any method of quantifying it.
Sounds an awful lot like "We don't know anything about gravity." to me.
Nothing to say about your mangled house analogy, huh?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by sinequanon, posted 01-07-2008 3:48 PM sinequanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by sinequanon, posted 01-08-2008 7:04 AM molbiogirl has replied

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


Message 123 of 147 (447007)
01-07-2008 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by bluegenes
01-07-2008 6:12 PM


Plus "assess degree of damage, and decide whether repairs worth while." Plus "fix gap or tighten other thread to compensate, decide".
What evidence have you of "assess degree of damage"?
What evidence have you of "fix gap or tighten other thread to compensate"?
Two anecdotal accounts from a spider nut do not count.
I'll go for that. Fuzzy logical spiders = fuzzily intelligent spiders.
Then you think computers are intelligent.
If they're automatons, why aren't we just far more complex automatons, and please don't say that we've got souls.
I am still holding out on the definition. Fingers crossed for an Admin.
I will provide a definition tomorrow if no one steps in.
And, Blue. Puh lease. A soul? Perish the thought. That's the sort of malarkey Juggs slings.
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.
Again, computers use logic. Computers are automatons, not intelligent silicon-based creatures.
I have spent a fair amount of time researching intelligence and neuroscience (it's an interest of mine).
I have no problem with logic ≠ intelligence.
You seem to be using a layman's definition of logic. I am using a more precise definition (Boolean, etc.).
Digital computers are used to make logic decisions about matters that can be decided logically. Some examples are when to perform an operation, what operation to perform, and which of several methods to follow. Digital computers never apply reason and think out an answer. They operate entirely on instructions prepared by someone who has done the thinking and reduced the problem to a point where logical decisions can deliver the correct answer.
Perhaps if you think of the spider's "web program" in this light, you can more easily see that repairing a web isn't a big deal.
Computers troubleshoot their networks, you know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by bluegenes, posted 01-07-2008 6:12 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by bluegenes, posted 01-08-2008 10:14 AM molbiogirl has replied

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


Message 125 of 147 (447018)
01-07-2008 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by nwr
01-07-2008 7:15 PM


Re: A bit OT, but ...
Hey, snippybritches, you might want to take a look here before passing judgment:
Publications - RedwoodCenter

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by nwr, posted 01-07-2008 7:15 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 132 of 147 (447218)
01-08-2008 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by bluegenes
01-08-2008 10:14 AM


Why don't you use your own complex combinations of neurological "programs" to figure that out?
That's not evidence. Please answer my question.
Only from the spider man, but it's easily within their capabilities, so I've no reason to doubt it.
That's not evidence. Please answer my question.
If you need peer reviewed papers, then find one that shows me wrong.
Oh. I see. You don't want to do any work. You want me to do all the work.
As you very well know, this is a science forum. You are obligated to provide support for your bare assertions.
If you don't want to, then stop posting.
In the article that Larni linked to, they haven't got around to counting the neurones of that clever spider yet, let alone discovering the details of how its brain works.
There is plenty of work out there. You just haven't bothered to look for it.
Ionic Selectivity of Mechanically Activated Channels in Spider Mechanoreceptor Neurons
The Journal of Neurophysiology Vol. 78 No. 4 October 1997, pp. 2079-2085
There are over 11,000 papers.
In fact, you'll get most if not all that from Larni's link.
I read the link when you first posted it. I was unimpressed, to say the least.
Now ask me for evidence for my assertions, and I'll give it to you.
Fine.
Remember. I read the paper. I know all about the hangers and mazes.
While you're at it, why don't you provide evidence for the rest of the list?
And add to that list your unsupported contentions from this post?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by bluegenes, posted 01-08-2008 10:14 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by bluegenes, posted 01-08-2008 4:57 PM molbiogirl has replied

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


Message 133 of 147 (447220)
01-08-2008 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by sinequanon
01-08-2008 7:04 AM


Oh, and by the way, where is your evidence that spiders use gravity to orient themselves when building a web? Link?
Gravity as an orientation guide during web-construction in the orb spiderAraneus diadematus (Araneae, Araneidae)
Journal of Comparative Physiology A: Neuroethology, Sensory, Neural, and Behavioral Physiology
Volume 159, Number 2 / March, 1986
She probably doesn't know what a plumbline or spirit level is and your house won't be oriented using gravity!
There's a big difference in using a plumb line and a spider using gravity to orient itself in midair.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by sinequanon, posted 01-08-2008 7:04 AM sinequanon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by sinequanon, posted 01-08-2008 3:43 PM molbiogirl has not replied

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


Message 138 of 147 (447345)
01-08-2008 10:33 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by bluegenes
01-08-2008 4:57 PM


I've gone thru all of your posts.
Here are all the questions you have asked me.
Please let me know which you feel I have not answered.
I will go back thru your posts and list the questions I feel you have not answered.
Then, if you will do me the courtesy of answering first, I will post my answers after you have posted yours.
What about the inborn capacity to learn, the inborn adaptability, and the inborn tendency to communicate our knowledge to each other?
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?
I've been googling around for a scientific definition of intelligence, but no luck so far. Can you help?
Isn't the nervous system part of the phenotype? Is there something known in biology that indicates that only mammals can evolve intelligence? Do you think that neurobiologists have an advanced understanding of spiders at this point in time?
Isn't it hard to define a point when animals can be seen as biological automatons, and when they start thinking for themselves?
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?
Damn good "program", and if neurological "programs" don't combine to make intelligence, what does?
Why don't you use your own complex combinations of neurological "programs" to figure that out? Do they always repair damaged nets? Would the degree of damage effect the decision? Can they make decisions?
So will they be intelligent by your definition, I wonder?
Why don't you answer mine? Do you want me to start listing the unanswered ones?
Tell me, apart from fuzzy logic, which was your idea, what on the list does the Portia not have?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by bluegenes, posted 01-08-2008 4:57 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by bluegenes, posted 01-09-2008 11:25 AM molbiogirl has replied

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


Message 140 of 147 (447511)
01-09-2008 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by bluegenes
01-09-2008 11:25 AM


Thank you, Blue.
I am going to have to postpone a detailed response until my tech support appt day after tomorrow. My service is all effed up. It comes and goes.
Til then.
ABE:
Briefly.
Can something use be said to use logic without having intelligence, anybody?
Believe it or not, there is a lot of info out there re: this question.
Try "logic without intelligence animals"
This looks good.
Page Not Found: Error: Cognitive Science Program: Indiana University Bloomington
(c) Well, no-one decides where they're going to build their webs for them, plus the decision on whether or not to repair a damaged net, plus Portia's decisions on the best approach or route to her prey.
I'm no CS geek, but this sounds absurdly easy to program. Taz? What say you?
(d) Portia's the best for this, as she'll prefer a particular prey over others once having successfully killed it, and therefore must have it registered on some kind of memory. Also, in the island experiments, she'll try the second of two methods of escape after having failed with the first.
(e) Portia again. She'll spend ages planning an approach to a potential victim, and then might take hours to successfully execute the plan, apparently requiring the mapping of a route in her mind and, dare I say it, even imagination.
Both maze execution and navigating a complex envrionment are easily reproduced in robots.
A reinforcement connectionist approach to robot path finding in non-maze-like environments
Machine Learning
Volume 8, Numbers 3-4 / May, 1992
The basic reinforcement algorithm is extended with a strategy for discovering stable solution paths. Equipped with this strategy and a powerful codification scheme, the path-finder (i) learns quickly, (ii) deals with continuous-valued inputs and outputs, (iii) exhibits good noise-tolerance and generalization capabilities, (iv) copes with dynamic environments, and (v) solves an instance of the path finding problem with strong performance demands.
Autonomous micro-robot “Kity” for maze contest
Artificial Life and Robotics
Volume 1, Number 3 / September, 1997
The method is implemented and tested with a microrobot “Kity”, with a size of less than 1 cubic inch. It is possible to generate enough rules to make the robot achieve the goal of navigating freely in a maze with a small number of sensors. Experimental results show the efficacy of immune networks in controling robots in restricted environments. Kity demonstrated the efficiency of the associated algorithm arrived at by winning first prize at the 4th and 5th International Microrobot Maze Contests held in Nagoya, Japan, in October, 1995 and 1996.
Speeding up Learning with Dynamic Environment Shaping in Evolutionary Robotics
pascal-network.org
. a robot looking for food in a maze-like environment. The goal is to get the food; the food can only be seen when the robot is on it; the robot has to perform a four steps sequence to eat the food; food location is randomly chosen every run; the target eat sequence is randomly chosen before starting evolution.
Your argument that we build robots so robot logic is not analogous to spider logic is specious at best.
Evolutionary robotics is able to reproduce some of the "behaviors" of Portia. Just because we build a robot doesn't mean it isn't similar to (or even identical to) a biological system. Evolution builds spider logic. We build robot logic. So?
We build genomes from scratch that are perfectly functional. In fact, they are indistinguishable from "real" genomes. Why not logic networks?
None of Portia's behaviors impress me in the least as anything other than logic driven (strict definition of logic -- not layman's version).
More later.
Edited by molbiogirl, : my intertubes are unclogged

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by bluegenes, posted 01-09-2008 11:25 AM bluegenes has not replied

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


Message 141 of 147 (447569)
01-09-2008 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by bluegenes
01-09-2008 11:25 AM


Blue, I've just stumbled across a TED video that may pose a problem for your intelligent insect hypothesis.
Give this a look:
Deborah Gordon: The emergent genius of ant colonies | TED Talk
PS The tubes just got unclogged again. I've switched out my modem and my splitter to no avail. It's hit or miss til the tech shows up Friday.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by bluegenes, posted 01-09-2008 11:25 AM bluegenes has not replied

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


Message 144 of 147 (447803)
01-10-2008 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by sinequanon
01-10-2008 12:00 PM


Re: Intelligence Is as Intelligence Does
"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"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by sinequanon, posted 01-10-2008 12:00 PM sinequanon has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024