Tarantula Intelligence level? IQ vs True spiders

[Swoop]

Claiming that not-biting is "usually" safer is based purely on conjecture. Sure, it's safer in the completely artificial environments we've made for them but many much more intelligent animals (rats, dogs, etc) bite often even though they are much more capable of analyzing their situations.

Aggression is likely the result of physical characteristics. If we were talking about people instead of spiders I don't think you would be claiming that physical characteristics (height, strength, skin color, poor eyesight, etc) indicate intelligence.

 

[Thomas Loomis]

Does Darwinism state that? I'm not disagreeing I'm just interested i thought we were past such egocentricisim although the term advanced is difficult to truly define and could mean different thing s to different people,my veiw is that all organisms at the same point in time are equally advanced but feel free to correct me

I believe the idea of egocentrism is far more politically correct a notion than would have existed in Darwin's time. I would postulate that it would be difficult to say that humans don't have the greatest ability to interact with, control, and benefit from their environment. If working together to build a hospital is no longer considered more useful than effectively stalking a prey item, I think we need to redefine many core concepts. The idea of mutual benefit, discovery, and learned behavior is far more useful for an organism than a small set of polished instincts, no matter how well honed and polished.

It may seem egocentric to say the humans are the most evolved form of life. I tend to think not. Arachnids have not evolved to own humans in small containers in their homes and discuss them on homosapienboards.com. The magnitude of the difference in ability and potential is hard to ignore.

 

[Thomas Loomis]

The thing is that, as I've demonstrated- Aggression goes against survival in certain cases. It is usually better to run than to stay and defend- If you stand your ground and defend, you're more likely to end up on the loosing end. Because, for example, while A. robustus is both aggressive and has lethal venom, that still doesn't account for the almost certain death of the spider when it bites- namely via the steel toed boot that's fixing to come down on top of it when it decides to bite.

Exactly. The inability to properly evaluate the threat, such as it is, is definitely a deficiency. The fact that a spider is unable to recognize that a keeper is benign and not bite the hand that feeds it is an interesting observation as well. Dogs and cats, many other animals, can develop cooperative strategies to benefit themselves. The whole idea of mutualism is really the forefront of advanced development.

I very much doubt the A. Robustus is aware the we have an effective antivenom.

 

[boina]

It may seem egocentric to say the humans are the most evolved form of life. I tend to think not. Arachnids have not evolved to own humans in small containers in their homes and discuss them on homosapienboards.com. The magnitude of the difference in ability and potential is hard to ignore.

I didn't want to get into this, but this is such an incredible misunderstanding of evolution that I'd like to clarify it. More "evolved" is actually a term that doesn't make sense, so I've translated it to mean more advanced. I took the explanation from the pidgeonchess website, that states is much clearer than I could:

"The terms “primitive” and “advanced” in evolutionary biology are relative rather than absolute terms. “Primitive” simply means more like the original or less modified from previous iterations, likewise “advanced” means less like the original or more modified. A character being primitive does not mean that it is necessarily inferior or backwards and a character being advanced does not make it superior in any absolute sense.

For example, humans are primitive with regards to our hands and feet bearing the typical tetrapod compliment of five digits each (very early tetrapods had more toes but that is another story), whereas horses are are advanced in having modified both fore and hind feet down to a single digit; digit #3 which is homologous to our middle finger/toe.

Our hands serve us quite well despite their primitiveness and while the advanced hooves of equids are excellent for use in galloping around with, they don’t exactly allow horses a precision grip."

In short: humans certainly have a more advanced brain than a spider but overall you can't state they are the at the endpoint of evolution. You may argue humans are superior (I'd contest that) but they are definitely not more advanced - just differently advanced.

 

[Thomas Loomis]

In short: humans certainly have a more advanced brain than a spider but overall you can't state they are the at the endpoint of evolution. You may argue humans are superior (I'd contest that) but they are definitely not more advanced - just differently advanced.

How would you contest that? I would be curious to hear what type of semantic gymnastics you would use to create a scenario where the human, or even mamalian, brain would not serve a creature better than a spider's. You would have to redefine what we've come to believe as important and I don't accept that is a valid method of evaluating the question as it was narrowly posed.

Let me tell you what I see happening here. There seems to be a subset of individuals who find humans distasteful for any number of reasons that may or may not be valid. They find that they like pets and animals more than humans. They post bumper stickers like dog foot print that says "Who saved who?" and the like. They start arguments that humans are terrible and need to go away and just let the dogs (cats, hamsters, snakes, spiders) take over because "they do far less destruction to the earth" or some other related diatribe. One of the things I see creeping, insidiously, into society and the minds of the general public is the idea that no fact, no matter how scientifically provable, is no more than a point of view. We are running quickly down a slippery slope that allows people to form their own realities that do not have to be scientifially founded. Even then, when all else fails, people begin to say science doesn't work. We are living in a time where people are surrounded by timelines that are catered to their viewpoint and they never have to tolerate a dissenting opinion. This is not good for science or survival.

As for humans being the at their evolutionary endpoint, I would agree that this is not the case.

And another thing...arguing about minutiae is irrelevant. Semantic defenses like advanced vs evolved deflect the need to provide proper counterargument. You seem to be saying that if someone uses the wrong words then the argument is invalid. As far as humans and five fingers, this doesn't have anything to do with intelligence. It supports your idea that "I don't know what I'm talking about" as does the word argument. What I did is propose an opinion you don't care for. What you did is counter with a thinly veiled rant that shows bias and unwillingness to accept obvious conclusions.

 

[Nightstalker47]

I didn't want to get into this, but this is such an incredible misunderstanding of evolution that I'd like to clarify it. More "evolved" is actually a term that doesn't make sense, so I've translated it to mean more advanced. I took the explanation from the pidgeonchess website, that states is much clearer than I could:

"The terms “primitive” and “advanced” in evolutionary biology are relative rather than absolute terms. “Primitive” simply means more like the original or less modified from previous iterations, likewise “advanced” means less like the original or more modified. A character being primitive does not mean that it is necessarily inferior or backwards and a character being advanced does not make it superior in any absolute sense.

For example, humans are primitive with regards to our hands and feet bearing the typical tetrapod compliment of five digits each (very early tetrapods had more toes but that is another story), whereas horses are are advanced in having modified both fore and hind feet down to a single digit; digit #3 which is homologous to our middle finger/toe.

Our hands serve us quite well despite their primitiveness and while the advanced hooves of equids are excellent for use in galloping around with, they don’t exactly allow horses a precision grip."

In short: humans certainly have a more advanced brain than a spider but overall you can't state they are the at the endpoint of evolution. You may argue humans are superior (I'd contest that) but they are definitely not more advanced - just differently advanced.

Right. If we look at tarantulas and true spiders from an evolutionary standpoint...they most certainly are older or more primitive beings. As they have been around for much longer then the first humans.

We are obviously far more advanced(intellectually) then any spider or invertebrate. Humans have evolved at much faster rates then tarantulas...but that doesn't necessarily make them "more evolved" per say. More effectively perhaps...

 

[boina]

How would you contest that? I would be curious to hear what type of semantic gymnastics you would use to create a scenario where the human, or even mamalian, brain would not serve a creature better than a spider's.

No, a human brain would not serve a spider better. Human brains are costly on an energy level and they need space. There is simply not enough space in a spiders body for a more advanced brain and they would need huge amounts of food to feed it. What they have serves ther purpose perfectly: A ganglion that needs little energy and space and allows for extremely long fasts but still manages to provide all behaviour and movement necessary for survival. A spider with a human/mammalian brain would also get exceedingly bored. Evolution means something is adapted to it's environment and serves its purpose well. The spider ganglion is obviously extremely well adapted since spiders have been around for quite a long time, incidentally much longer than humans or even mammals.

If we don't alk about spiders, but other creatures: Roaches are extremely well adapted and versatile, much more so than humans and quite without a mammalian brain. On the other hand the human brain seems to come with not enough caveats. It seems quite able to kill quite a lot of it's own kind for the most absurd justifications. From an evolutionary standpoint that does not sound like it promotes long term survival.

 

[Thomas Loomis]

Right. If we look at tarantulas and true spiders from an evolutionary standpoint...they most certainly are older or more primitive beings. As they have been around for much longer then the first humans.

We are obviously far more advanced(intellectually) then any spider or invertebrate. Humans have evolved at much faster rates then tarantulas...but that doesn't necessarily make them "more evolved" per say. More effectively perhaps...

More effectively. I like that. It really is at the heart of the matter. I'm going to use semantics for this one. Humans are more effective in terms of overall ability than spiders. Which incidentally wasn't the original question. What we still haven't really addressed is that the question was one of tarantula intelligence. If we are evaluating tarantula intelligence in terms of terms of intelligence among all creatures, than humans clearly are in a better position. Perhaps we should more clearly detonate the boundaries of the question.

No, a human brain would not serve a spider better. Human brains are costly on an energy level and they need space. There is simply not enough space in a spiders body for a more advanced brain and they would need huge amounts of food to feed it. What they have serves ther purpose perfectly: A ganglion that needs little energy and space and allows for extremely long fasts but still manages to provide all behaviour and movement necessary for survival. A spider with a human/mammalian brain would also get exceedingly bored. Evolution means something is adapted to it's environment and serves its purpose well. The spider ganglion is obviously extremely well adapted since spiders have been around for quite a long time, incidentally much longer than humans or even mammals.

If we don't alk about spiders, but other creatures: Roaches are extremely well adapted and versatile, much more so than humans and quite without a mammalian brain. On the other hand the human brain seems to come with not enough caveats. It seems quite able to kill quite a lot of it's own kind for the most absurd justifications. From an evolutionary standpoint that does not sound like it promotes long term survival.

This is true. Human brains would not serve spiders better. I promise if you could magically give spiders human thought for a moment and then ask if they would rather be human, you would likely find that they would have their one granted wish be to become human.

As to the "bad things people do" point, this really is not proof that humans don't do a whole lot of good for their species. This directly speaks to what I talked about in my earlier response regarding an "animal lovers defense." Human shortcomings do not prove that humans should go away or that they need to take a backseat.

 

[Swoop]

I would be curious to hear what type of semantic gymnastics you would use to create a scenario where the human, or even mamalian, brain would not serve a creature better than a spider's.

The human brain enables us to die of shock from what should be non-lethal injuries.

Rip off a person's arm, they'll probably die of shock. Rip off 80% of a spider's appendages, they carry on with their business and grow them back.

Also, being as intelligent as a human without a means to communicate or manipulate our environment isn't useful. Imagine trying to build a rudimentary house with hooves.

 

[Thomas Loomis]

The human brain enables us to die of shock from what should be non-lethal injuries.

Rip off a person's arm, they'll probably die of shock. Rip off 80% of a spider's appendages, they carry on with their business and grow them back.

Also, being as intelligent as a human without a means to communicate or manipulate our environment isn't useful. Imagine trying to build a rudimentary house with hooves.

All valid points. I would still rather be human. Being sentient carries a great deal of benefit. I will gladly accept human limits to enjoy music and arts. The ability to survive without 80% of my limbs doesn't seem a very pleasant trade off.

 

[Swoop]

I'd certainly rather be human but the philosophical question about intelligence vs. satisfaction is even further off topic.

 

[Thomas Loomis]

I'd certainly rather be human but the philosophical question about intelligence vs. satisfaction is even further off topic.

Yeah. Off topic is definitely where we have gotten.

 

[The wolf]

I believe the idea of egocentrism is far more politically correct a notion than would have existed in Darwin's time. I would postulate that it would be difficult to say that humans don't have the greatest ability to interact with, control, and benefit from their environment. If working together to build a hospital is no longer considered more useful than effectively stalking a prey item, I think we need to redefine many core concepts. The idea of mutual benefit, discovery, and learned behavior is far more useful for an organism than a small set of polished instincts, no matter how well honed and polished.

It may seem egocentric to say the humans are the most evolved form of life. I tend to think not. Arachnids have not evolved to own humans in small containers in their homes and discuss them on homosapienboards.com. The magnitude of the difference in ability and potential is hard to ignore.

It depends on what you define as advanced whether you mean successful on an individual level or as a species both of which we exell at or are we talking about morphologicaly and physiologicaly advanced which is more of what I meant originally in which case complexity can be both good and bad for overall success

 

[Thomas Loomis]

It depends on what you define as advanced whether you mean successful on an individual level or as a species both of which we exell at or are we talking about morphologicaly and physiologicaly advanced which is more of what I meant originally in which case complexity can be both good and bad for overall success

I was speaking of overall accomplishment in terms of totality. I remember a professor at University expounding on how arthropod exoskeletons have a capacity limit that makes exoskeletons more advantageous to continuing advancement of a species.

Without boring anyone with obvious differences I would highlight one. The ability to use thought to create processes and machinery that overcomes a physical limitation cannot be understated.

 

[Shrike]

How I feel about this thread:

 

[Andrea82]

Maybe reset this thread.. It was about Theraphosidae intelligence vs True Spiders right? So what can Theraphosidae do that true spider species can't, and vice versa? Maybe it is even better to pick species because to group one against the other... That will make for a very very large field of discussion.

 

[Thomas Loomis]

Maybe reset this thread.. It was about Theraphosidae intelligence vs True Spiders right? So what can Theraphosidae do that true spider species can't, and vice versa? Maybe it is even better to pick species because to group one against the other... That will make for a very very large field of discussion.

I agree. Let's reset this thread.

 

[Swoop]

Re-do!

It might be useful to 'rank' some mygalomorphs and true spiders according to perceived intelligence and then compare the extremes. Jumpers will (obviously?) be up there in the true spider column so comparing them to something like A. geniculata, which thinks everything is food, isn't a useful comparison.

 

[atraxrobustus]

Claiming that not-biting is "usually" safer is based purely on conjecture. Sure, it's safer in the completely artificial environments we've made for them but many much more intelligent animals (rats, dogs, etc) bite often even though they are much more capable of analyzing their situations.

Aggression is likely the result of physical characteristics. If we were talking about people instead of spiders I don't think you would be claiming that physical characteristics (height, strength, skin color, poor eyesight, etc) indicate intelligence.

Probably not, but one takes their physical characteristics into account when making decisions, which IS intelligence.- its the maxim of "know thyself and your capable of." I have observed A. Hentzi specimens that seem rather selective about when they will show a threat pose, that seems to be able to identify me in some way as opposed to giving someone else an immediate threat pose upon sensing that something is there. How then would you account for the selectiveness, since by your theory, a threat should be a threat???

Another thing that is interesting about spiders is that the use of tools has been held to be a differing marker between lower and higher orders. BUT, as we see, spiders are capable of using tools (i.e. they use their own silk as a tool to accomplish various things.) Therefore, perhaps arachnids exhibit some characteristics of higher orders?

 

[atraxrobustus]

I don't think it's useful to compare the two infra-orders in terms of intelligence- their differences largely involve two different ways of doing the same things in vastly different habitats- The same way as humans have different approaches to doing the same tasks- which doesn't necessarily mean that one approach is more intelligent than the others. For this reason it is better to compare several genus in the same family as not to compare apples to oranges.

Indeed, the less tools you have in the toolbox to work with, the more intelligent you have to be in order to use those tools effectively to get the same job done. We must never forget to put ourselves in their world- which is a much larger and much more challenging place than it is for us.