On Tarantula Psychology: Consciousness vs Autonomy

[Arko]

I've been thinking recently about psychology in animals, and because I am a hobbyist, tarantulas are understandably the first thing my thoughts go to.

Let's start off with the basics: tarantulas are mostly blind so they use their senses to detect movement near them and strike for prey. Do they consciously think about what they are doing when they hunt? Do they even know that what they're doing will keep them alive? Or do they act as biological robots, performing an action from a DNA-ingrained perception of an environment change?

I know consciousness is undefinable, but just for more context, it's worth mentioning that it is widely believed what consciousness evolved so animals (i.e. humans because we can't prove other animals are conscious) could actively seek prey. An organism is much more efficient if it can think about prior experiences and rewards in a very real down-to-earth way, this keeps information storage efficient and gives incentive to survive, as opposed to bumbling about until prey is hopefully stumbled upon.

So are tarantulas actively hunting? Calculating the perfect moment after hunting all day? Or are they just told by their little biological CPU to stand in front of the door and wait for prey to walk in, perform an action, and not even think about the result.

Personally, I believe they have at least a tiny semblance of consciousness, my reasoning being that not all tarantulas are the same, they have different personalities, and furthermore, their personalities even change throughout their life. I have an H. Hainanum who used to just sit on top of the substrate all day, no matter what she would never go in her hole, not to hunt or hide. There is no biologically advantageous reason to not be inside of that hole. Plain and simple. She couldn't possibly know she is in captivity, she just doesn't have the brain capacity, but maybe she actively thought and knew that wherever she was living wasn't particularly dangerous. Even still, I wonder whether she consciously chose to stay out all day and night, or possibly it was her biology telling her that since there is little threat outside of her hole, it would be strategically advantageous to cover more ground with her senses. At the very least, I think this shows that tarantulas have a bit more complex brains than that of a simple machine.

I could keep going on with stories and reasons and doubts and evidence, but I believe the gist of what I'm saying is easy to understand. I would like to hear the thoughts of the community on tarantula psyche. And if anyone would like to go on in the comments, I do have a few more stories I could tell that plead the case of tarantula consciousness, at least a little.

 

[NukaMedia Exotics]

I mean I'm seeing a couple points I don't quite get, of course when they attack prey they are "actively hunting". Also no species of animal has every organism being exactly the same lol.

 

[Paul1126]

There is no way they are self aware

 

[Gohma]

You may have read Thomas Nagel's "What is it like to be a Bat?" Nagel writes that although there is nothing in our present constitution that would allow us to understand what a bat experiences (with bats perceiving the world very differently than we do with echolocation) that there is still no reason to suggest that a bat doesn't have some semblance of conscious experience. I would agree that spiders have some form of direct experience which we might never understand, certainly more than a rock or even a tree. As for thinking, that is a process performed by our very advanced brains. But we have been surprised by invertebrate brains in recent years. I do think its safe to assume that slight differences in physiology, genetics, and environment account for all of the seeming idiosyncrasies of a given spider. Though in that way, we're not so different.

 

[Pepper]

Veey interesting to think about, but im no expert. I would like to see a comparison between tarantulas/active hunting spiders and reptiles, since a lot more research has been done on reptile brains. Furthermore, i know jumping spiders are "very intelligent" with the ability to modify hunting strategies, whereas tarantulas pretty much stopped evolving millions of years ago. It would be interesting to see a comparison between those two.

Someone pay for me to go to college and give me a research grant, lol

 

[boina]

OMG. Another one of those threads... Sorry, I don't mean to be rude but I have seen these kinds of threads a little bit too often. I don't even know if I want to get into this - again.

Anyway, you have a very strange way to mix up philosophical and biological concepts, and quite honestly, your grasp of behavioral concepts seems rather rudimentary. There is much, much more in between conscious awareness and robotic determination of behavior.

First of all, yes tarantulas have memory, that has been proven (I'm not looking the studies up AGAIN).
Memory is the prerequisite to adapt behaviour according to the individual circumstances. This means a tarantula can remember where it once successfully found food or water and go there again. It also can remember where it got attacked and not go there again. It can get used to certain smells and vibrations and recognize those as not threatening, e.g. my cats jumping on top of the spider shelves and the tarantulas don't care. Conscious decision making is, however, not necessary for this. It's as easy as memorizing good places to hunt and good places to drink and go there when hungry or thirsty, etc. An organism does not need to consciously think about previous experiences for those to be memorized and be included in some very rudimentary decision making. It's as simple as remembering food - water - dangerous - safe. Practically any animal can do that since it's a necessary survival trait. "Thinking" and conscious decision making is on a whole other level and although no one can exclude with absolute certainty that a tarantula can do those things it is very highly unlikely.

 

[Vanessa]

We can all come up with anecdotal evidence of what looks like conscious behaviour, but that doesn't make it so. One or two situations, that we interpret as conscious behaviour, with our biased mindset and limited experiences, does not make for evidence of anything.
The study of instinct versus consciousness has been going on for millennium and will go on as long as we exist. The physical and psychological requirements that define sentience are known. And, while I am not selling invertebrates short on what they might be capable of, people have to learn to appreciate them for what they are capable of and not what we wish they capable of. Not appreciating them for what they are, and what they can teach us, is what is truly selling them short.

 

[Dev1lZ]

What a great topic! I read all the posts and then found all of the old threads and read through them as well. From my experiences in life most of the population has a very closed view of how conscious life should be. It’s not until one has an experience that takes the blinders off-in a few words- that you really understand how limited in the understanding of the universe we really are. Many are very terrified to leave their ‘comfort zone’ as once you step outside of it there is no going back.

Respect all life, especially the things in your care. Because you just don’t know. There is a reason why spiders are depicted in many Native American cultures’ art on a spiritual level. It wasn’t because they thought they looked cool and were fun to draw. I’ll leave it at that.

 

[T Lurksalot]

Whenever I see someone express the idea that Tarantulas might be more intelligent than we know I can’t help but think there’s some mammalian bias happening. After all they just look so fuzzy, and even the word Mygalomorph means “mouse shaped”. I know the first time I ever held one in my hand I was surprised at how cold she felt, even though consciously I knew full well I was holding an arthropod. Given that and how closely we interact with them in the course of daily care it’s not surprising how much we keepers tend to anthropomorphize, and maybe ascribe more consciousness to them than we would any other big bug.

 

[Arko]

OMG. Another one of those threads... Sorry, I don't mean to be rude but I have seen these kinds of threads a little bit too often. I don't even know if I want to get into this - again.

Anyway, you have a very strange way to mix up philosophical and biological concepts, and quite honestly, your grasp of behavioral concepts seems rather rudimentary. There is much, much more in between conscious awareness and robotic determination of behavior.

First of all, yes tarantulas have memory, that has been proven (I'm not looking the studies up AGAIN).
Memory is the prerequisite to adapt behaviour according to the individual circumstances. This means a tarantula can remember where it once successfully found food or water and go there again. It also can remember where it got attacked and not go there again. It can get used to certain smells and vibrations and recognize those as not threatening, e.g. my cats jumping on top of the spider shelves and the tarantulas don't care. Conscious decision making is, however, not necessary for this. It's as easy as memorizing good places to hunt and good places to drink and go there when hungry or thirsty, etc. An organism does not need to consciously think about previous experiences for those to be memorized and be included in some very rudimentary decision making. It's as simple as remembering food - water - dangerous - safe. Practically any animal can do that since it's a necessary survival trait. "Thinking" and conscious decision making is on a whole other level and although no one can exclude with absolute certainty that a tarantula can do those things it is very highly unlikely.

The last "Similar Thread" was from 4 years ago so I don't know what you're on about.

I'm thinking about this in a more abstract way; I shouldn't need a PhD in Arachnology to post an exploratory thread on the internet. We can't even define consciousness, is being able to remember where water and danger is count as consciousness? I don't know, maybe. All animals may need some semblance of consciousness to survive, we just don't know. I'm trying to differentiate animals from computers. Computers "remember" but they don't play back that memory in their CPU to better understand that there was water at x place 2 days ago. Maybe animals can?

Whenever I see someone express the idea that Tarantulas might be more intelligent than we know I can’t help but think there’s some mammalian bias happening. After all they just look so fuzzy, and even the word Mygalomorph means “mouse shaped”. I know the first time I ever held one in my hand I was surprised at how cold she felt, even though consciously I knew full well I was holding an arthropod. Given that and how closely we interact with them in the course of daily care it’s not surprising how much we keepers tend to anthropomorphize, and maybe ascribe more consciousness to them than we would any other big bug.

You're confusing consciousness with intelligence. Completely different thing. We don't know the minimum brain power it takes to be conscious, every animal could be conscious, or no animal could be conscious, there is no proof, that's why I'm theorizing.

The physical and psychological requirements that define sentience are known.

Where are they written? I would like to see them.

of course when they attack prey they are "actively hunting".

Are they? How can you be so certain that they aren't simply being told by their little spider CPU that there is movement at x position, place legs A, B, C, D, and F here, here, here ,here, and here. They may not even know what they're doing, the middle man is cut out, the biology might do everything for the specimen.

 

[lostbrane]

The last "Similar Thread" was from 4 years ago so I don't know what you're on about.

Whilst it may not be a thread, it’s just that this sort of thing crops up every so often. Latest example I found was in a thread not about consciousness at first but it warped into that, and it was posted only 5 months ago...

Overall I feel the “mammalian bias” plays into both overestimation and underestimation of the capability of other living things. Everything is capable of a great deal, and in some cases well
more than we would have thought. The reverse is also true. At least from
my experience.

A problem, I find with most philosophical discussions is that eventually there comes a point where it breaks things down beyond our current capabilities and then it’s just a matter of conjecture, which can be quite fun depending, and sure it may lead to new and wonderful/radical perspectives but there is little use at that point for a discussion I feel.

As to my own opinion, at least beyond the biological to a point, I 100% believe that they have a conscious will. As to extent, no idea but I feel it is a necessary thing for all life.

 

[Vanessa]

Where are they written? I would like to see them.

Seriously? You couldn't do a google search on "leading studies on determining animal sentience" yourself? Then I doubt that you are going to make an effort of reading any of these, then...

Animal sentience and the precautionary principle.pdf
https://animalstudiesrepository.org/animsent/vol3/iss21/3/
https://peh-med.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1747-5341-5-14
https://www.amazon.ca/Emotional-Lives-Animals-Scientist-Explores/dp/1577316290
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/245599/summary
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/3/3/882
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10539-012-9351-1

Didn't we have another conversation about being resourceful somewhere else on this board recently?

 

[NukaMedia Exotics]

Are they? How can you be so certain that they aren't simply being told by their little spider CPU that there is movement at x position, place legs A, B, C, D, and F here, here, here ,here, and here. They may not even know what they're doing, the middle man is cut out, the biology might do everything for the specimen.

They don't have a CPU as they're not computers, they have a tiny ganglion of nerves considered their brain. I'd argue that any hunting is "actively hunting" lol. But aside from that they know how to attack prey, and they have some ability to recall spacial disposition and such. This stuff is easy to find discussions on if you just Google it.

 

[boina]

The last "Similar Thread" was from 4 years ago so I don't know what you're on about.

I'm thinking about this in a more abstract way; I shouldn't need a PhD in Arachnology to post an exploratory thread on the internet. We can't even define consciousness, is being able to remember where water and danger is count as consciousness? I don't know, maybe. All animals may need some semblance of consciousness to survive, we just don't know. I'm trying to differentiate animals from computers. Computers "remember" but they don't play back that memory in their CPU to better understand that there was water at x place 2 days ago. Maybe animals can?

The last thread I participated in was a year ago, sooo...

I take your exploration of tarantula consciousness here then as a purely philosophical speculation. In biology "consciousness", although not well defined, is usually thought to include higher brain functions, like self awareness, active thought processes, reasoning like: if I do this than that will happen, and so on. Nothing like that has ever been shown in invertebrates, though a lot of it has actually been shown in vertebrates. Anyway, I'm sorry that I went the biological way in responding - since I'm not really that philosophically inclined I'll leave you all to it.

 

[Dev1lZ]

There have been theories brought up in recent years regarding that the spinal nerve column may have a very important role in human consciousness itself and that the brain may be have less importantance than previously thought. There is something to that ‘bundle and jumble’ of nerves. We already know that tarantulas can communicate with one another through vibrations, particularly in the mating process.

There once was a time where humans and animals could openly communicate because we all shared in nature with one another. We could get into things like Adam and Eve in the Garden, or how Native American ‘myths’ often include lessons taught by animals and insects themselves speaking directly. What happened is that humanity itself fell ‘out’of nature and ‘in’ to themselves and forgot. The ‘unnatural’ became ‘natural’ for humanity.

The natural order of this universe and particularly demonstrated on this planet is cyclic. What has gone around will eventually come back around. But the ‘tune’ may be a little changed up in different cycles. The Mayan culture was acutely aware of this for instance and created a calendar system that is much more accurate than our modern one. Just because we believe we are at the apex in our modern culture, another point of view is that we are at our lowest-but climbing our way back up the ladder.

 

[Arko]

Seriously? You couldn't do a google search on "leading studies on determining animal sentience" yourself? Then I doubt that you are going to make an effort of reading any of these, then...

Animal sentience and the precautionary principle.pdf
https://animalstudiesrepository.org/animsent/vol3/iss21/3/
https://peh-med.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1747-5341-5-14
https://www.amazon.ca/Emotional-Lives-Animals-Scientist-Explores/dp/1577316290
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/245599/summary
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/3/3/882
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10539-012-9351-1

Didn't we have another conversation about being resourceful somewhere else on this board recently?

Don't come to a thread and claim there are rules to a completely made up sect of philosophy, there are none. Only speculation. "Just google it" does not quantify theorizing. I'm not here to see what John Paul the Second thought about Tarantula psychology after he got out of Harvord, it doesn't matter how smart you are, nobody can prove where the line is between being conscious and being a metaphorical computer. I'm sat here speculating simply because there are no tests to see if a spider can think.

 

[Vanessa]

Don't come to a thread and claim there are rules to a completely made up sect of philosophy, there are none. Only speculation. "Just google it" does not quantify theorizing. I'm not here to see what John Paul the Second thought about Tarantula psychology after he got out of Harvord, it doesn't matter how smart you are, nobody can prove where the line is between being conscious and being a metaphorical computer. I'm sat here speculating simply because there are no tests to see if a spider can think.

Well, with that attitude, combined with your aversion to looking up information for yourself - on Google or any other source - you're going to fit right in around here, aren't you?
And it's Harvard, for the record. Although that likely isn't going to matter too much to you.
Good luck!

 

[Arko]

They don't have a CPU as they're not computers, they have a tiny ganglion of nerves considered their brain. I'd argue that any hunting is "actively hunting" lol. But aside from that they know how to attack prey, and they have some ability to recall spacial disposition and such. This stuff is easy to find discussions on if you just Google it.

Well, with that attitude, combined with your aversion to looking up information for yourself - on Google or any other source - you're going to fit right in around here, aren't you?
And it's Harvard, for the record. Although that likely isn't going to matter too much to you.
Good luck!

I'm surprised at how many people think it's set in stone, that we've proven animals are conscious or unconscious. We have not. There are no rulebooks regarding animal sentience. Theories and speculation are all humanity has or will ever have. If I "Google it", I will find other people's theories and speculation. I could subscribe or not subscribe to other people's beliefs. This is not my prerogative. I have my own beliefs, looking at other people's could change mine, but either way it doesn't matter, because there is no way to prove one way or the other what is right and what is wrong. I am not right or wrong, you are not right or wrong, stop acting like this is not the truth.

 

[Vanessa]

I'm surprised at how many people think it's set in stone, that we've proven animals are conscious or unconscious. We have not. There are no rulebooks regarding animal sentience. Theories and speculation are all humanity has or will ever have. If I "Google it", I will find other people's theories and speculation. I could subscribe or not subscribe to other people's beliefs. This is not my prerogative. I have my own beliefs, looking at other people's could change mine, but either way it doesn't matter, because there is no way to prove one way or the other what is right and what is wrong. I am not right or wrong, you are not right or wrong, stop acting like this is not the truth.

I hate to break this news to you, but having an education - from Harvard, or any other institution of higher learning - does make someone's theories more valuable than someone's without an education. Because being educated in a particular field makes your theories less speculative and more substantiated by actual facts. That's kind of the way science works - theories that are based on facts that can be substantiated and not just wild speculations based upon feelings and personal anecdotes.

 

[EtienneN]

There have been theories brought up in recent years regarding that the spinal nerve column may have a very important role in human consciousness itself and that the brain may be have less importantance than previously thought. There is something to that ‘bundle and jumble’ of nerves. We already know that tarantulas can communicate with one another through vibrations, particularly in the mating process.

There once was a time where humans and animals could openly communicate because we all shared in nature with one another. We could get into things like Adam and Eve in the Garden, or how Native American ‘myths’ often include lessons taught by animals and insects themselves speaking directly. What happened is that humanity itself fell ‘out’of nature and ‘in’ to themselves and forgot. The ‘unnatural’ became ‘natural’ for humanity.

...why bring mythology into this? Mythology has less than zero to do with scientific inquiry. I'm not against those who have their own personal beliefs (I'm an atheist who believes in the possibility of reincarnation). However, stating fantastical claims that cannot be refuted is a logical fallacy. Also, one doesn't have to 'live in' Nature to be a part of it. I donate several hundred dollars a year to the World Wildlife Fund and other environmental agencies and I do what I can do reduce my carbon footprint.

The natural order of this universe and particularly demonstrated on this planet is cyclic. What has gone around will eventually come back around. But the ‘tune’ may be a little changed up in different cycles. The Mayan culture was acutely aware of this for instance and created a calendar system that is much more accurate than our modern one.

Just for the record, the Mayans did not have a 'more accurate' calendar. They had a much, much, more (unnecessarily) detailed one that would be grossly impractical for global use in the modern Era.

And saying that everything is cyclic is an oversimplification. Humans love to find patterns in 'noise', meaning we evolved to seek out patterns to better succeed in surviving and nowadays this pattern seeking software in our brains kind of just 'runs amok'. Here's a great analogy: It's like Nostradamus finding 'patterns' in the 'noise' of text in the Christian Bible. They mean nothing and anyone could do it. It's just a matter of how you connect the dots.