1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Just a short, quick vid.

Discussion in 'Myriapods' started by Staehilomyces, Mar 10, 2018.

  1. Whitelightning777

    Whitelightning777 Arachno-heretic Arachnosupporter

    Advertisement
    I've watched quite a few feeding, rehousing and yes handling videos. Aside from being escape artists, there's no sign or proof of intelligence.

    The gangilia are exactly the same with one exception. Centipedes are longer and have more of them. That just probably means you need to process more data to run 32 legs then 8 legs.

    Mantis shrimp and jumping spiders are both very visual predators that need to judge speed and distance quickly. I'm sure it probably takes more data processing to do that just from the physics involved.

    Can a centipede purposefully push a button, perhaps treated with a specific scent, to get a reward through conditioning?

    Can a spider do so?

    I haven't seen it done by anyone else.
     
  2. Dennis Nedry

    Dennis Nedry Arachnobaron Active Member

    You are confusing the kind of low level learning insects have with training a dog to do tricks. That argument of "train it to go through hoops" and "teach it to press a button" is really irrelevant when what we're talking about is getting the animal to learn "this smell not prey, this smell not predator". What you're saying is like saying "teach this dog how to find x in an algebraic equation". Incapable of higher learning =/= incapable of learning

    The argument of "change your scent and it will bite you" also doesn't hold any water as a snake will bite a hand that smells like a rat out of impulse, even though you used a hognose snake as an example of an animal that is capable of higher learning than an invert

    The argument of "mantis shrimp and jumping spiders are visual predators, therefore must be intelligent unlike centipedes" isn't a very good argument as your point of Cephalopods being the only examples of intelligent inverts as is based around visually based predators

    Your point of "they're robots" isn't relevant at all as said before because robots behave in an entirely different manner an are programmed by humans to perform exact tasks

    That's what our entire point is! The pede learns that your scent is neither prey nor predator, I said that before
     
  3. Staehilomyces

    Staehilomyces Arachnoprince Active Member

    Okay, that's it. I will not continue this discussion any more until you have answered all the following questions.

    1: Given the examples of Portia and mantis shrimps, do you admit that arthropods can be intelligent, and that you were mistaken beforehand?

    2: Have you ever kept any pedes - do you have any actual experience?

    3: If it were a case of me getting used to the pedes as opposed to the reverse, why is it that I have to start from square one whenever I handle a pede for the first time? If it were as you say, then surely I'd be able to handle another pede of similar initial temperament in the same manner from the get-go?

    4: What is your response to my mention of the article suggesting that the pede remembered where it had dropped a food item? Also, what is your response to the bat-hunting behaviour observed in certain populations of Scolopendra gigantea and S. viridicornis? Does this not indicate intelligence? It can't be pure instinct, as captive specimens don't display any attempts at such behaviour.

    5: How many handling videos have you actually watched? Have you seen ThePureLife's YT channel or bloomspike and the_centipede_whisperer on IG?

    Answer all of these questions properly, or I simply won't continue this discussion. Back when I used to debate against creationists about evolution, they'd always skip many of my arguments, and I'd let them get away with it. I won't make that mistake again.

    Also, for clarity's sake, number each answer, so I know what questions you're responding to.
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2018
    • Agree Agree x 2
  4. Whitelightning777

    Whitelightning777 Arachno-heretic Arachnosupporter

    1. Yes they can be. Visual processing even machines requires more computational power and more lines of code. It's much harder to program a robot to see then to learn by touch or physical contact.

    2. No, I don't own them but I've watched hours of feeding and rehousing videos in order to make that decision.

    3. The reason you have to get used to them it's that they reproduce sexually. The size, thresholds, and sensitivity varies. Aside from clones and identical twins, each animal is unique. Evolution works precisely because these guys aren't identical. If you worked with cloned individuals of the same age under identical conditions, the learning process would be much faster.

    4. Of course they can map and remember where the objects are located. So can a robot. Unless you feed it flying bats, it works have no opportunity to engage in that behavior. Automatic drones and heat seeking missiles can actively maneuver and pursue objectives even when they are controlled by humans engaging in evasive maneuvers. These responses are preprogrammed prior to activation. If the target can hide it's heat signature or perhaps had stealth technology the heat seeking missiles will not attack the target. The stealth aircraft had traits not specified in its programming.

    A centipede can, of course, pursue prey items even mammels that are more intelligent. Just because a human fighter pilot can't outrun a missile which can detect him out her doesn't mean the missile is more intelligent then a human. In both cases, the predator is simply faster and physically more powerful, capable of exploiting weaknesses in its target.

    5. I've watched probably hundreds of them on many inverts including lots of centipedes. The centipedes are of course far faster and more maneuverable, but they aren't any smarter.

    Here's a popular robot learning the layout of a home for the first time. Obviously it's performance is by far inferior to what nature can do but it's not intelligent and can't learn to solve problems that it isn't preprogrammed to solve.

    Like guiding a centipede, a barrier is erected to keep it out of undesirable areas. Although not shown here, the robot is capable of returning to it's docking station in order to recharge. This is analogous to feeding and returning to a hiding place.




    Now, here's a centipede being rehoused into a different enclosure. Look at the search patterns as it becomes orientated. The performance of the neural network is by far superior, probably exceeding that of super computers, but essentially it's still a robot. It can't solve any sort of novel logical problem with complexity any more then a heat seeking missiles can figure out which aircraft is military and which is civilian or learn to make friends.



    Lastly, here's a missile pursuing and hitting it's target shooting down a plane.




    None of these have any higher order intelligence but the capacities are amazing. Nevertheless, they are still essentially robots. They aren't cats, dogs or even bearded dragons or members of freshwater cichlid family. (They are quite smart for a fish and can be tamed.)
     
  5. Dennis Nedry

    Dennis Nedry Arachnobaron Active Member

    Again, the robot comparison is a terrible comparison for any living organism as they aren't preprogrammed by people to perform specific actions. The missile targeted and shot down a plane, but the comparison to the bat eating centipedes doesn't work here as the centipedes must learn where to find he bats whereas the missile is aimed in a general direction, launched and then seeks out the target. It doesn't learn anything other than where the target is

    What does sexual reproduction and variation between individuals have to do with this? If all the centipedes are varied and he is the one getting used to handling the pede and not the other way around, then why do the centipedes change their behaviour? If he were to grab a centipede right off the bat he'd would almost certainly get bitten because they would perceive him as a threat, but eventually the centipedes are taught that he is not a threat so the centipedes don't bite him. If they are not being taught that he is not a threat then they should be reacting the same way they did when he first started socialisation, but they don't react the same way to him.

    Nobody is claiming that centipedes are more intelligent than vertebrates, nobody said that, everybody has simply been saying that they CAN learn. Which they can, even if your Roomba comparison was accurate then that would mean that they can still learn.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. Greasylake

    Greasylake Arachnolord Active Member

    650
    607
    108
    Texas
    A missile doesn't find a target. The pilot finds a target, paints it with his HUD and makes sure the computer gets a lock, then launches the missile which has a computer which calculates the flight path of the target and intercepts it. The only time where you could say a missile finds a target is if the aircraft was beyond visual range (BVR) and the radar picked it up and fed the information to the aircraft's central computer which locks it up then feeds the information to the missile.
     
  7. Staehilomyces

    Staehilomyces Arachnoprince Active Member

    Right, so do you really think watching videos equates to having years of actual experience? Two of the pede handlers I mentioned have kept tens, possibly hundreds of pedes over several years, and both say pedes are more intelligent than inverts such as tarantulas and scorpions. Do you think your "experience" or lack thereof is on the same level as theirs?

    As others have said over and over again, robots are a terrible comparison. They only do exactly what their human manufacturers program them to do. Nothing else. If a pede overcomes its in-built instinct to bite a large organism that holds it, then it's different to a robot.

    Let us also not forget that the original topic was whether or not pedes get used to being handled. Just like in your debate about heating, you've been drifting all over the place. Let's get back to the original topic - how do you explain how all pedes end up extremely docile after being worked with repeatedly? Yet, if your explanation was the truth (that I'm the one getting used to them), this would be noticeable in pretty much any invert, but it isn't; no bad-tempered scorpion or tarantula will get that docile that quickly when worked with in the same way.
     
  8. Whitelightning777

    Whitelightning777 Arachno-heretic Arachnosupporter

    The behavior is observable. The actual behavior is encoded genetically. You don't have to learn to breathe or have your heart beat. Nevertheless pulse rates and respiration varies from person to person. With inverts, we can't yet get access to the source code which is millions of years old. Like breathing, digestion, puberty and other bodily functions; the behavior of lower animals is automatic.

    They can remember landmarks, where hides are and water dishes are located but humanizing them and attributing emotions to them just isn't logical.

    Your OBT is NOT angry. It's acting according to algorithms hardwired genetically. Hopefully at some point with generic sequencing and epigenetics, the programming will become accessible.

    Of course, no doubt certain types of pressure and objects are classified as harmless and others aren't. Humans can probably learn that with practice. The problem is that living things aren't video games and the rules are so complex that you can't always control them.

    Remember, super computers can beat chess champions. A computer millions of years old can also be unpredictable.

    Some air to air missiles operate automatically using built in heat sensors. The older ones were human controlled.
     
  9. Staehilomyces

    Staehilomyces Arachnoprince Active Member

    What has that got to do with the topic of this post? (and the actual topic of this discussion). You can compare pedes to all the machines you want, but in the end, you've presented nothing to suggest that my pedes have not become acclimated to being handled. Your point about the acclimation being on my behalf can be easily falsified by the fact that I still need to do socialization work on less aggressive pedes than this one. If it were simply me being more experienced, then obviously I'd be able to handle anything less aggressive that that individual.
    And, I ask you again - do you think that your "experience", or lack thereof, outweighs that of people who have kept tens or hundreds of pedes over several years, all of which say that pedes are comparatively intelligent for arthropods, and will certainly acclimate to handling?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Dennis Nedry

    Dennis Nedry Arachnobaron Active Member

    Super computers beat chess champions because they're programmed to make the best possible move in any situation, that's not unpredictable at all

    Nobody said they had emotions, capability to learn and emotion are two very different things. Nobody has anthropomorphised them either, we're saying that they have a vey basic level of learning. That's not equal to pushing human ideas on an animal, if I said "oh my centipede will never bite me, he knows me, he's bonded with me very closely" that would be giving it human traits

    Since when was allowing a predator hundreds of times your size to hold and touch you automatic genetically encoded into the animal? The animal is adapting it's behaviour to suit new stimuli, which is a very basic form of learning
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Staehilomyces

    Staehilomyces Arachnoprince Active Member

    I've lost count of how many times we've gone in circles here. Almost...robotic...

    As a side note, please understand that I am unwilling to take any advice from someone who I just found out fed a live bird to their tarantula...
     
    • Sad Sad x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. Whitelightning777

    Whitelightning777 Arachno-heretic Arachnosupporter


    That's not mine!! For one thing, mine is only about 5 inches in size. That one in the video is at least 50 percent bigger!! Heck, without knowing how big that enclosure is it might even be pushing 10 inches.

    Someone else I was talking to said that it was a myth that bird eaters actually eat birds, that it was impossible. That's why I downloaded it and then uploaded it to my channel.

    This is my L klugi in its enclosure. You can see that it bears no resemblance whatsoever to the other one. I only own one Lasiodora, namely Justina.


    L klugi Justina cage view.jpg


    In no way do I condone this practice. Having said that, it's still worth noting mistakes. Even if one wanted to feed vertebrates, it would make far more sense to feed a newborn chick or pinkie versus an adult that could turn the tables on the tarantula way to easily.

    From what I've heard, if an invert is older an be in decline, and in no way going to molt in the immediate future, for an unknown reason, on occasion one (1) feeding of a warm blooded animal can sometimes turn it around and it'll improve.

    While the calcium problem with molting isn't quite fully proven, why take the risk unless it's a last resort.

    I edited that video and in the description strengthened the strong condemnation of this practice by adding further concerns that I had about it.

    If the bird was purchased under false pretenses and the seller didn't know it was a feeder, that might be fraud. If this has happened on multiple occasions, the tarantula was needlessly put at risk which might violate animal cruelty laws.

    Some EU countries needlessly ban feeding vertebrates to invertebrates. This is silly because there might be an extraordinary situation where it might be necessary such as a proven vitamin deficiency in which a vertebrate had that vitamin within itself.

    In any event, I'm glad this was pointed out because that description was pretty limp in its disapproval of what happened before I fixed it.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2018
    • Face Palm Face Palm x 1
  13. Dennis Nedry

    Dennis Nedry Arachnobaron Active Member

    Well frozen thawed works just as well as live, it's safer, the nutrients don't go anywhere and no vertebrates need to suffer the horrible pain of being killed by a tarantula
     
    • Love Love x 1
  14. Whitelightning777

    Whitelightning777 Arachno-heretic Arachnosupporter

    Mine won't eat until the feeders start to move. I've noticed that if chilled and motionless, the invertebrates ignore them.

    I also had to remove a string from my H spinifer's mouth that was tangled in the legs. Maybe that's how it got there.

    Freezing a vertebrate to death is also pretty agonizing and may well take longer then venom to do it's work.

    If they were put into a nitrogen or argon chamber, that would be humane. These compressed gases and tanks can be had at any welding supply store.
     
  15. Dennis Nedry

    Dennis Nedry Arachnobaron Active Member

    All frozen feeders I've seen are gassed to death, not frozen to death. Gassing is much easier and faster

    If yours don't eat the frozen dead pinkie mice, microwave them and move it around with tongs to create vibration, a tarantula can't tell the difference between a mouse that's walking around and a mouse that's being moved with tongs. That's what you're meant to do at least