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
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

  
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

  
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

  
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

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


Message 48 of 147 (446425)
01-06-2008 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by jar
01-06-2008 9:54 AM


Re: Spider can learn to build a web in weightless environment
I'd be surprised if they could actually learn to cope with an environment like that.
Here's a spider nut who thinks they're intelligent, though, and this is more impressive than anything I've observed in my garden!
The intelligent Neoscona crucifera

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by jar, posted 01-06-2008 9:54 AM jar has not replied

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


Message 75 of 147 (446615)
01-06-2008 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by molbiogirl
01-06-2008 3:41 PM


molbiogirl writes:
Let's start by defining "the system". If you can find some supporting evidence that there is a shared neurobiological structure, then we can begin to discuss this issue.
You do realize, of course, that you are suggesting that every animal on this planet, vertebrate and invertebrate, shares a common neurobiological system?
I am definitely not suggesting that every animal on this planet shares a common neurobiological system. I think I used the word "massive" in an earlier post to describe the difference between our brains and those of spiders. Rather, you seem to be implying that only one kind of neurobiological system could produce something that could be described as intelligence. There's no reason why a completely different biological system on another planet couldn't produce intelligent creatures.
My definitions of intelligence, tho more restrictive than yours, is no where near rigorous enough for the purposes of this debate.
Is there a standard scientific definition of intelligence? You seem to want to make the definition of intelligence as narrow as possible. In which case, you'll win your argument with sine, but only by making the rules.
Essentially, the discussion ends up with definitions, which is why I said in an earlier post that the statement in the thread title "Spiders are intelligent" is neither true nor false. It's relative.
It's like asking whether human beings are fast. Compared to snails, yes, but compared to cheetahs, no. Putting a measure on adjectives like "fast" and "intelligent" is impossible.
So. Spiders learn from experience. But. As Jar has pointed out, when a hardwired instinct is challenged (by lack of gravity), they do not adapt. They carry out their program.
Not having that level of extraordinary adaptive ability doesn't mean they have none. Put a dog up there, and it would probably need help.
If your definition of intelligence includes being as adaptable as we are, then we're the only intelligent animals there are.
I've been googling around for a scientific definition of intelligence, but no luck so far. Can you help?
Let's start by defining "the system". If you can find some supporting evidence that there is a shared neurobiological structure, then we can begin to discuss this issue.
The system is biological evolution, and intelligence is a characteristic that could be advantageous. You don't need to have primate intelligence, or mammalian intelligence. I'd certainly give intelligence to birds, for example, but then I'm very liberal about it.
Intelligence is certainly something that could be produced by convergent evolution. Within mammals, if we traced our own lineage back to the point of divergence with that of the dolphins, I doubt if we would credit the common ancestor with anything like the level of intelligence of either descendant.
What's the strict, tight, generally accepted, consensus scientific definition of intelligence, then, because if there is one, you'd certainly have a strong argument that it should be used on this thread, because we're in "Science Forums".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by molbiogirl, posted 01-06-2008 3:41 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by molbiogirl, posted 01-06-2008 6:34 PM bluegenes has replied

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


Message 98 of 147 (446682)
01-06-2008 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by molbiogirl
01-06-2008 6:34 PM


molbiogirl writes:
Blue, shame on you. A strawman?
I thought this was the strawman.
molbiogirl writes:
You do realize, of course, that you are suggesting that every animal on this planet, vertebrate and invertebrate, shares a common neurobiological system?
I certainly never suggested that. But they're all part of the same DNA based life system. When you say that spiders are "hard wired" to be what they are and to do what they do, I agree. I just think that we are genetically hard wired as well.
Evolution only acts on phenotypes. Which means you need to offer a neurobiological explanation of spider intelligence.
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? I'll look around.
As for asking me to search for scientific papers to back up my comments on language and the word intelligence, I'm waiting for your scientific definition of intelligence. Remember, if it's an agreed definition amongst scientists, then I'm the one who backs your right for its use on a science thread, and I'll be perfectly happy to agree that spiders are not intelligent according to the scientific usage of the word if that proves to be the case.
It won't actually mean much, other than that scientists have decided to give the word a very narrow meaning.
molbiogirl writes:
bluegenes writes:
Not having that level of extraordinary adaptive ability doesn't mean they have none.
Then please find evidence that supports your assertion.
One anecdotal account of "taming" a tarantula simply will not do.
That's actually a rational statement, not an assertion. You could've accuse me of stating the obvious, though. Presumably you mean my assertion that spiders have some level of ability to adapt to new situations, which I probably made elsewhere in the thread. Their webs are constantly being damaged in many different ways. They seem to assess the damage, and make repairs accordingly. Pointing out that they're hard wired to do this is like pointing out that we're hard wired to educate our children, that it's a characteristic of the species. Both processes require intelligence in the non-scientific sense of the word.
I gave one of the common definitions of intelligence:
"The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge."
You don't need scientific papers to fit spiders to that, any more than you need scientific papers to know that they've got eight legs, so if this were a coffee house thread instead of a science thread, I'd have a good case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by molbiogirl, posted 01-06-2008 6:34 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by molbiogirl, posted 01-06-2008 11:14 PM bluegenes has replied

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


Message 100 of 147 (446711)
01-07-2008 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by molbiogirl
01-06-2008 11:14 PM


molbiogirl writes:
Look. I asked for you to support your assertions.
I think that if someone wanted to claim that an animal with a brain that exhibits complex behaviour has no intelligence, then that would be the assertion that requires support.
Here's an interesting title of a scientific paper for you.
Title:
The Intelligence of the American Turret Spider
Publication:
Science, Volume 2, Issue 23, pp. 43-44
Publication Date:
07/1883
Origin:
JSTOR
Bibliographic Code:
1883Sci.....2R..43.
Unfortunately, I can't access it.
Now, let's have that concensus scientific definition of intelligence, shall we?
(I agree with you that sine should offer definitions).
I really need this mysterious scientific definition of intelligence in order to see if I agree with you or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by molbiogirl, posted 01-06-2008 11:14 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by molbiogirl, posted 01-07-2008 12:15 AM bluegenes has replied

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


Message 102 of 147 (446736)
01-07-2008 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by molbiogirl
01-07-2008 12:15 AM


mobiogirl writes:
Oh for feck's sake, Blue. 1883?
I didn't notice the date, just laughed at the title and put it in. Sorry about that.
Did you look at Message 96?
Yes. But notice that I'm not using their basic web building instincts as an example of flexible behaviour, but rather their ability to identify unpredictable damage and repair it.
I also agree entirely that small brains severely limit flexibility, but that doesn't mean zero flexibility or zero intelligence.
Remember, I'm the first to agree that they won't get by as intelligent if we use a narrow definition, which is why we need to define the word for the purposes of the thread.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by molbiogirl, posted 01-07-2008 12:15 AM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by molbiogirl, posted 01-07-2008 1:14 AM bluegenes has replied

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


Message 104 of 147 (446747)
01-07-2008 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by molbiogirl
01-07-2008 1:14 AM


Why wouldn't the weaving "program" not suffice?
In a way, I agree that it's part of the program, but it appears that the spiders are programmed to improvise what appear to be intelligent solutions, and this raises the question of whether or not a bit of "intelligence" has been included in the program.
Have a read of the link that I put in earlier to this spider enthusiast. Not the first bit, but where he describes two web repairing incidents.
The intelligent Neoscona crucifera
The thing is that all animal intelligence, presumably, must start from "programs". If, as in our ancestry, the organism evolves the ability to innovate, then can't that be seen as the result of a complex and "clever" step in the evolution of the program. Isn't it hard to define a point when animals can be seen as biological automatons, and when they start thinking for themselves?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by molbiogirl, posted 01-07-2008 1:14 AM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by molbiogirl, posted 01-07-2008 2:13 AM bluegenes has replied

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


Message 110 of 147 (446781)
01-07-2008 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by molbiogirl
01-07-2008 2:13 AM


molbiogirl writes:
Damage repair is identical to web building.
How is it different? How is doing a second time what they did the first time improvisation?
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. Then look at the two very different and apparently clever ways that the same species used to solve two similar, but slightly different, problems.
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.
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?".
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by molbiogirl, posted 01-07-2008 2:13 AM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by molbiogirl, posted 01-07-2008 3:31 PM bluegenes has replied

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


Message 120 of 147 (446998)
01-07-2008 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by molbiogirl
01-07-2008 3:31 PM


molbiogirl writes:
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."
Plus "assess degree of damage, and decide whether repairs worth while." Plus "fix gap or tighten other thread to compensate, decide".
Damn good "program", and if neurological "programs" don't combine to make intelligence, what does?
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.
I'll go for that. Fuzzy logical spiders = fuzzily intelligent spiders.
I spent time (briefly) in the Entomology Dept. so I know that's not true.
But not in the English department. I said "I haven't found anything yet that will help us either way on the question [are spiders intelligent]", not that there isn't anything. True, I assure you, but I've still got a lot of looking to do, and thanks for the search tips.
Blue, I asked you to PLEASE back up a whole list of your assertions, one of which is "Intelligence is relative."
I said the adjective "intelligent" is used relatively, and it is, and I gave examples. I'll look seriously at your list when you:
(a)Provide the long awaited consensus scientific usage of the word "intelligent" and
(b)Explain how an animal which can gain knowledge and act on it, and which is capable of logic (albeit fuzzy) is not intelligent and
(c)Explain why you attribute the behaviour of spiders to inbuilt neurological programs of some kind, but not the behaviour of our own species. If they're automatons, why aren't we just far more complex automatons, and please don't say that we've got souls.
Stop with the armchair biology and do some work.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by molbiogirl, posted 01-07-2008 3:31 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by molbiogirl, posted 01-07-2008 6:50 PM bluegenes has replied

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


Message 129 of 147 (447156)
01-08-2008 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by molbiogirl
01-07-2008 6:50 PM


molbiogirl writes:
What evidence have you of "assess degree of damage"?
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? Obviously, unless they always attempt repair, and the ones in my garden don't, and can easily be observed assessing damage. Anecdotal, I know, but also true.
What evidence have you of "fix gap or tighten other thread to compensate"?
Only from the spider man, but it's easily within their capabilities, so I've no reason to doubt it. If you need peer reviewed papers, then find one that shows me wrong.
Two anecdotal accounts from a spider nut do not count.
Not for much, I agree. But it's better than the absolute zero we have so far that spiders do not have any intelligence, isn't it? I confidently predict that you won't be able to demonstrate that spiders are biological robots, without also demonstrating that we are as well.
Then you think computers are intelligent.
I certainly do not. Computers are tools that merely reflect the biological intelligence of their makers/programmers. Spiders do not require programmers, and the "programs" in their brains are part of them, and part of their intelligence if they have it.
I am still holding out on the definition. Fingers crossed for an Admin.
I will provide a definition tomorrow if no one steps in.
It'll be interesting to see how many animals we can fit into it. It'll have to be very tight to conclusively exclude that little spider hunting jumping spider in the link Larni provided.
And, Blue. Puh lease. A soul? Perish the thought. That's the sort of malarkey Juggs slings.
There was a smile and a wink on that one, as I knew very well you wouldn't say that, but I put it in for a reason. Relate it to my comment above about demonstrating that spiders are biological robots without also demonstrating that we are, and perhaps you'll see what I'm getting at.
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).
My father used to research the brain and the evolution of the nervous system. I remember, as a kid around 1970, asking him how much was really known about the brain. He said "lots" and described loads of things that were known, and then finished "all in all, perhaps nearly 1% of what there is to know."
That's nearly forty years ago, and enormous strides have been made, but the human brain still has a long way to go before fully understanding itself, I'm sure.
Which brings me back to my earlier comment that I haven't yet found anything to tell us one way or another whether spiders are intelligent or not, simply because it seems that, like my Dad's comment on human brains, there's more that isn't known about their brains than is.
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.
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.).
I am a layman, so probably, yes. You don't mean that spiders do fuzzy algebra do you?
quote:
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.
And spiders don't have anyone else to do the thinking for them, do they? Computer logic is a product of our intelligence, and spider logic is a product of theirs. What we're loosely describing as their neurological "programs" are part of them, just as ours are part of us.
Spiders:
(a) Receive knowledge and act on it.
(b) Use fuzzy logic
(c) Make decisions
(d) Can learn from experience, so have memory
(e) Can carry out long term plans
Now ask me for evidence for my assertions, and I'll give it to you.
In fact, you'll get most if not all that from Larni's link.
Portia labiata: the spider so smart it puts mammals to shame
So will they be intelligent by your definition, I wonder?
Edited by bluegenes, : missing quote
Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by molbiogirl, posted 01-07-2008 6:50 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by molbiogirl, posted 01-08-2008 3:24 PM bluegenes has replied

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


Message 135 of 147 (447234)
01-08-2008 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by nwr
01-08-2008 12:52 PM


Re: Unpredictability
nwr writes:
I think it evident from watching animals, that the further they are from humans the harder it is for us to comprehend their behavior. We do pretty well at understanding mammal behavior. It is considerably more difficult for us to comprehend bird behavior, and still harder to comprehend reptile and fish behavior. Our distance from spiders and insects is far greater.
I agree entirely, and it's important for us to keep our own subjectivity in mind. Spiders may be able to achieve results we can recognize, but by very different mental processes to the ones we would use for the same objective.
If you read the account of the Portia spider stalking, it can plan out a complex strategy of attack, which we, as hunters, can appreciate. But the suggestions in that article as to how they might do it reminded me of the kind of autism that produces idiot savants.
There's an autistic guy in London who, if taken on a helicopter ride over the city, can draw lots of the buildings he's flown over in incredible detail, so we describe him as having a photographic memory, and the Portia kind of reminded me of that. Its tiny brain may be able to deal very well with a very small amount of information at a time, whereas our brains, surveying the same scene, would look at the overall picture, and be flooded with information.
But it figures out a result that we can understand as being clever.
One interesting thing is that word "memory", because it definitely has it, and also learning (will concentrate more on a type of prey once having had success) and the planning and execution of a unique attack over several hours, which I'd only describe as instinctive behaviour in the sense that the hunting and gathering methods of our own species relate to instinct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by nwr, posted 01-08-2008 12:52 PM nwr has seen this message but 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